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

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

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

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.

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.] 

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.