Newsletter of
The Maryland State Archives
November 27, 2000
Vol. 14, No. 22
www.mdsa.net
TAYLOR VS. TURLEY: FORTUNES AND MISFORTUNES OF WAR IN POST-CIVIL WAR AMERICA 
by Dave Shackelford 
Recent appraisal work with records relating to Maryland's Court of Appeals uncovered a forgotten case that relates the risky nature of business transactions made during the Civil War and reveals the complications U.S. courts faced when resolving financial disagreements at the war's end. The case involved a promissory note for $9,000, paid in Confederate money, between two men then living in Tennessee. Interest in the case stemmed from an exhibit, the Confederate $100 bill pictured below, now removed to SC5321. 

On February 9, 1863, Nathaniel Taylor borrowed $9,000 from William H. Turley to pay debts he owed in Richmond and to support his iron manufacturing business. At the time of the loan the two men lived in Carter County, Tennessee, which was firmly under the control of the Confederate government. The amount borrowed was paid in Confederate

currency since it was the common money of the area and widely used for business transactions. There were two stipulations on the loan. First, Taylor could repay the loan beginning at any time after six months. Second, and more importantly, the total amount was due in two years in current bankable funds. Shortly after the loan was made, both men left Tennessee and met several times in New York City and other locations that were under the control of the Federal government. However, when it came time to repay the loan in February 1865, Taylor had not made any payments. 

Without further research we can only speculate why Taylor did not repay the loan. Perhaps he had lost everything because of the war. He may have made a calculated decision to renege on his debt in order to pay less than originally borrowed. Or possibly he

(continued on Page 2)


Page 2
The Archivists' Bulldog
TAYLOR VS. TURLEY
(continued from first page)

just did not have the money. In any event, one thing is certain, Taylor and Turley disagreed on how much was actually owed and in what form payments were to be made. Taylor chose Confederate dollars, and Turley wanted U.S. currency (commonly called Greenbacks). How or why Turley decided to sue Taylor in 1869 in the Howard County Circuit Court is unknown. The court decided in favor of Turley, and Taylor appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals. 

Without a doubt, Taylor's reasons for wanting to repay in Confederate currency were closely related to its devaluation caused by the collapse of the Confederate government. While $9,000 in Confederate money was a substantial amount in 1863 and often taken at face value, by the time the loan was due Confederate currency was almost worthless. When compared to gold, Confederate currency was worth 1/10 to 1/15 its value, and by the end of the war it took seven Confederate dollars to buy one U.S. Greenback. If the 7:1 ratio of Confederate money to U.S. money is used, a loan that should have amounted to $12,633 in
Confederate money (with interest), was only worth $1,804 in U.S. money. 

Lawyers for Nathaniel Taylor argued that he did not have to pay the debt for several reasons. First, the contract was void because the loan was made in Confederate money. Second, the loan was a wagering contract and illegal (wagering in the sense that the parties were speculating over who would win the Civil War and in what currency the funds would be repaid). Third, even if any money was owed, the amount due should be payable in the value of Confederate money, not U.S. currency. 

To address the issue of whether the contract was void because it was made with Confederate currency, the Court of Appeals based its decision

in part upon a recently decided Supreme Court Case, Thorrington v. Smith, which determined that such contracts were binding. The court also specified that legitimate contracts, made under other governments "in war as well as peace are enforceable in our courts." Even if that country was in rebellion, it was still considered the "de facto" government of the area. And not only was a loan in Confederate money valid, but it was recoverable in United States currency. 

The court did not consider the loan a wagering contract because both parties entered the contract knowing the uncertainties of the situation. The judges also believed that both parties could have specified the exact method of repayment at any time, and that the court could not void the contract because it appeared that one side made a really bad business decision based on the change in the valuation of the money. A contributing factor to the court's decision was also the simple fact that
Taylor was able to use the Confederate money to repay debts in Richmond and continue his iron manufacturing business. 

A few choice words ultimately doomed Taylor's attempt to avoid repaying his loan. The court ruled that the parties specified the loan be repaid "in current bankable funds." By 1865, Carter County, Tennessee was firmly under U.S. control and the banks used U.S. currency. Therefore, Taylor had to pay the full amount of the loan with interest in U.S. funds. If this simple phrase had not been added, the contract could have been interpreted as payable in Confederate money. In the opinion, Judge James A. Stewart argued that both men knew there was a possibility that another government could be in power and "�contemplated the very possible occurrence of a different currency from the one then existing, and adapted the terms of the note to meet such a contingency." 

The court's ruling in favor of William Turley demanded Nathaniel Taylor to repay $12,633.

(continued on Page 3)


The Archivists' Bulldog 
Page 3 
TAYLOR VS. TURLEY
(continued from Page 2)

Nathaniel Taylor's attempt to avoid repayment of the loan emphasized three major issues that would be considered by many attempting to resolve economic issues caused by the War: the validity of contracts created during the War, the speculative nature of business in a state in secession, and the currency used for repayment. Resolving these issues was a critical factor in the reintegration of the
South into the national economy. 

[Source Documents, records of the Court of Appeals: (Docket) GE, p. 322, Oct. Term 1870, No. 18, MSA S412-9;  (Judgments) Oct. Term 1870, No. 18, MSA S381-302; (Opinions) Oct. Term 1870, No. 18, MSA S393-35;  (Briefs) Oct. Term 1870, No. 18, MSA S375-62; (Maryland Reports) Vol. 33, pp. 499-511, MSA J321.] 

BOOK REVIEW 
by Robert Barnes 

Rosemary B. Dodd and Michael E. Flood eds. Abstracts of Land Records of Anne Arundel County; Volume V. (Pasadena: The Anne Arundel Genealogical Society, 2000). Pp. viii, 267; indexed; illus.; cloth. 

The editors have abstracted four original libers of Anne Arundel County Land Records: RD 1, TI 1, IHT 1, and RD 2, covering the years, 1728-1737. A typical entry shows the names of the grantor(s) and grantee(s), their places of residence, date of the deed and date it was recorded, name of the tract and its location, consideration, names of witnesses, and, if given, release of dower. Sometimes the names of previous owners are given. Other instruments recorded in the land record books include rates for shipping posted by ship captains, appointments of attorneys, bonds, division of land among heirs, and indentures of servants. The full name index contains names of grantors, grantees, witnesses, and tracts. There is also a listing of people with single names. A map in the front of the book shows the locations of major streams. The book is extremely well done, and is an essential addition to one's Anne Arundel County bookshelf. 

           RECORD TRANSFERS

           DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, DIVISION OF VITAL RECORDS
               (Adoption File) var.d. [MSA T309] Restricted
               (Affidavits of Paternity) var.d. [MSA T1333] Restricted
               (Baltimore City Directory) 1895-1928 [MSA T2781]
               (Birth Record, BC) 1924 [MSA T310] Restricted
               (Birth Record, BC, Index) 1890-1917 [MSA T1344]
               (Death Record, BC, Index) 1906-1912 [MSA T205]
               (Filiation Record) var.d. [MSA T314] Restricted

           DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, MENTAL HYGIENE ADMINISTRATION
               (Minutes of Resident Rights Committee) 1986-1998 [MSA T3223]

           DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, POSTMORTEM EXAMINERS COMMISSION
               (Autopsy Reports) 1994 [MSA T1258]

           DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, DIVISION OF HISTORICAL AND
           CULTURAL PROGRAMS, MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST
               (Topographic Quadrangles) 1998 [MSA T3280]
               (Site Surveys) n.d. [MSA TM113]