Ivey v. Lalland. ing, in McMath v. Johnson, that the covenants of the contract were independent. The facts of the case before us are scarcely distinguishable from those of the case of McMath v. Johnson; in both cases all the notes given for the purchase-money had matured before suits were insi tuted upon the notes. Recognizing and adhering to the doctrine, as finally laid down in McMath v. Johnson, we think the demurrer to the bill of appellees was properly overruled by the chancellor, and the decree should not be disturbed. The question involved in this case having undergone repeated and thorough investigation by this court, we think it ought now to be considered decisively settled, in this state at least. Let the decree be affirmed. IVEY, plaintiff in error, v. LALLAND. (42 Miss. 444.) Contracts-Confederate money-Lex loci contractus. In an action on a note given in Louisiana for a loan of confederate money held, that the courts of Mississippi would not enforce the contract, since the courts of Louisiana had declared all contracts, the consideration of which was confederate money, illegal and void. THE defendant in error instituted suit against the plaintiff in error on a promissory note made by him in favor of the defendant in error for the sum of $4,355, dated New Orleans, the 5th of April, 1862, and payable twelve months after date. The defendant below appeared to the action and pleaded four special pleas, of which the fourth plea alleges that the note sued on was made at New Orleans, in the state of Louisiana, and payable twelve months after the date thereof, at the office of the plaintiff below in said city, for and in consideration of the treasury notes of the confederate states, commonly known as confederate money, amounting on their face to the sum of $4,000; that the sum of $355 in excess of said sum was the interest upon said $4,000, for one year, for the loan of said treasury notes. Ivey v. Lalland. To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and the demurrer was sus tained by the court, and upon issues on other pleas the plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment for the sum of $562.87; and from this judgment the plaintiff in error prosecutes this writ of error, and assigns for error that the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer of the plaintiff to the defendant's fourth plea. Orr & Matthews, for plaintiff in error. Martin & Bates, for defendant in error. PEYTON, J. The general principle as to the validity of a contract is, that a contract which is valid where it is made is to be held valid everywhere. And, on the other hand, if void or illegal by the law of the place where made, it is void everywhere. 2 Parsons on Contracts (5th ed.), 570. The general rule as to the construction of contracts is, that if they relate to movables which have no situs, or place, they are to be construed according to the law of the place where they are made, or the lex loci contractus; and if they relate to immovables, or what the common law calls real property, they are to be construed according to the law of the place where the property is situated, or the lex loci rei sita. 2 Parsons on Contracts, 571. But in respect to all questions as to the forms or methods or conduct of process or remedy, the law of the place of the forum applies, or the lex fori governs. And the general rule, that the validity and effect of a contract are to be determined by the law of the place where it is made, is, however, subject to the exception that no nation is bound to recognize or enforce contracts injurious to its own citizens or subjects; and the enforcement by one nation of contracts made under the laws of another rests on a principle of comity, which cannot be so far extended as to violate the positive legislation of the other. And there is, perhaps, another exception to the general rule; and that is, where a contract which violates the revenue laws of the country where it was made comes before the courts of another country, those courts will not take notice of the foreign revenue laws. As the contract in this case was made in the state of Louisiana, and in terms to be performed there, the law of that state is to govern as to its validity and effect. And the courts of that state having often decided that such contracts are illegal and void, we have arrived at the conclusion that the plea presented a good Mississippi and Tennessee Railroad Company v. Devaney. defense to the action, and that the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer to it. It has been repeatedly held by the court of last resort in the state of Louisiana, that the issue of confederate treasury notes was illegal, and the notes void, and formed no valid consideration for a contract; and that a contract, the consideration of which is confederate treasury notes, is illegal, and against public policy, and will not be enforced in that state. Hemly v. Scott, 19 La. An. 161; Reeve v. Doughty, id. 164; Graves v. Hardesty, id. 186; Washburn v. Offert, id. 269; King v. Huston, id. 288; and McCracken v. Poole, id. 359. For these reasons the judgment will be reversed, and the demurrer to said plea overruled; and this court, proceeding to give such judgment as the court below ought to have given, do order and adjudge that the plaintiff below take nothing by his writ, and that the defendant below go hence without day, and that he have and recover of and from the said plaintiff his costs. SHACKELFORD, C. J., dissenting. MISSISSIPPI AND TENNESSEE RAILROAD COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. DEVANEY. (42 Miss. 555.) Railroads -re-location of road — trespass under claim of title. A railroad corporation, authorized by its charter to take the lands of private parties for its road, does not exhaust its power by once locating its road; but in case of necessity, may re-locate it and take private property for the purpose. A party entering upon land in good faith, under the belief that he has the title thereto, is not a naked trespasser, though the title be in fact in another; and he is entitled to all legal protection to his improvements and property placed upon the premises, given by the statute to parties in pos session under color of title. THE facts are fully set forth in the opinion. Mississippi and Tennessee Railroad Company v. Devaney. White & Chalmers, and Clapp, Vance & Anderson, for plaintiffs in error. Walthall & Golladay, and W. & J. R. Yerger, for defendants in error. SHACKELFORD, C. J. The first case, No. 11,057, is an action of ejectment; the second, an appeal from the verdict of a "jury of review," to condemn and assess damages for the right of way for a road-bed of five-eighths of a mile, from the line of the old road-bed of the Mississippi and Tennessee Railroad Company, to connect with the track of the Mississippi Central Railroad Company, on the north side of the Yallobusha river. The same questions are involved in both cases, and by desire of counsel they will be decided together. The jury in the ejectment case found a verdict for the defendant in error, and judgment was rendered upon it. In case No. 11,058, they found a verdict for $3,600, in favor of the defendant in error. A motion for a new trial was made in each case, assigning the same grounds in each case. 1st. Because the court erred in giving plaintiffs' charge No. 2. 2d. For error in the court in refusing defendant's charges. 3d. Because the jury found contrary to law and evidence. During the progress of the trials, exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court in granting the instructions asked by defendant in error, and to the action of the court in refusing those of the plaintiff in error. These rulings of the court are made grounds of error in this court. All the testimony (an agreed state of facts) is also embraced in the bill of exceptions taken to the rulings of the court in refusing new trials. Which testimony, or agreed state of facts, is, in substance, that the Mississippi and Tennessee Railroad Company was chartered by an act of the legislature of the state of Mississippi on the 16th day of October, 1852, and by the terms of its charter authorized to construct a railroad from some point on the northern boundary line of the state through certain counties, "and to connect with the Mississippi Central railroad at such point as they may elect." The company were empowered by their charter to enter upon and condemn land of private parties for the purpose of procuring the right of way, when the same could not be obtained by consent of the land owners, and the manner of obtaining such condemnation, VOL. II.-77 Mississippi and Tennessee Railroad Company v. Devaney by jury of review, was prescribed. The company selected the town of Grenada, being immediately upon the south bank of the Yallobusha river. A bridge across said river was erected, a few hundred yards from a similar structure belonging to and used by the Mississippi Central Railroad Company. The road-bed and bridge thus erected were continually used from the completion thereof until the month of June, 1863 (having been used for two years), when the bridge of the Mississippi and Tennessee railroad and the Mississippi Central railroad were both burned by military forces. After the close of the late civil war, both companies being in embarrassed circumstances, occasioned by the loss of their bridges and their rolling stock, etc., they resolved to build a joint bridge or partnership bridge over the Yallobusha river at Grenada, upon the piers of the Mississippi Central Railroad Company, with the permission from said Mississippi Central Railroad Company to the Mississippi and Tennessee Railroad Company to run their cars over the track of the Mississippi Central road, a few hundred yards north of the Yallobusha river, for the purpose of crossing the river upon said partnership bridge. To effect this object it became necessary for the Mississippi and Tennessee Railroad Company to deflect from their former track on the north side of the Yallobusha river, and to have the right of way to build a new track about five-eighths of a mile, to enable them to connect their rails with those of the Mississippi Central railroad. Jenkins Devaney, the defendant in error in the case before us, is the owner of the land lying between the two roads through which the Mississippi and Tennessee Railroad Company proposed to build their new or connecting track. Devaney and the plaintiff in error could not agree upon the price for the land upon which the road-bed for the track had to be constructed. Consequently the Mississippi and Tennessee company, upon the 11th day of November, A. D. 1865, in the mode pointed out by their charter, caused a jury of review to be summoned; who, after inspection of the land surveyed for the new track, condemned the same to the use of the company, and assessed the damages to be paid to Devaney therefor at $300. This amount the Mississippi and Tennessee Railroad Company, on the 14th of November, 1865, tendered to the said Jenkins Devaney, who refused to receive the same; proof of the tender to Devaney appearing in the record. No |