Woman Wants to Collect on 147 Year Old Promissory Note

During the Civil War the city of Tampa needed ammunition and other supplies but didn't have enough cash. They issued a promissory note for $299.58 to storekeeper Thomas Pugh Kennedy. 147 years later his great-granddaughter says the city never made good on its loan. Now, Joan Kennedy Biddle and her family are suing to collect the payment plus interest. The amount they want is $22.7 million. This shows why you should never just make your minimum payment.

Comments

14th amendment, section 4

[rk]

Case dismissed.

RE: 14th amendment

[Sandbags]

first, the 14th amendment absolves the federal govenment and states of debts related to wars, but does not line item cities.

Second, This was the civil war, and thus not an "insurrection" of the USA.

Third, this debt was incurred BEFORE the amendment was ratified, but almost 10 years, and was thus at that time expected to be paid.

Now, in the cities defence, at some point a statuate of limitations should have come into play. the city may acknowledge the debt, but after X number of years, the citizen may not have the right to enfore payment if legal action had not already been taken to collect. If the store owner never sued the city to collect, then it's probably far too late to try now...

Re: 14th amendment

[thedletterman]

Wow, you're definately not a lawyer.

The State can be protected by the 14th Amendment on Civil War Debts (Yes, it was an insurrection against the Federal Government).

The Amendment was passed as part of a relief package for the "Reconstruction" of the Southern States and was pretty much entirely and explicitly for the relief of debts incurred by the States during the Civil War.

The quid-pro-quo outcome to the Northern States was that if they attempted another insurrection, that there would be a shortage of lenders anxious to hand them money.

Re: 14th amendment

[thedletterman]

You might find the legal annotations on the 14th
Amendment useful:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/37.html

"Sec. 4 was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the Government issued during the Civil War"

It is BEYOND QUESTION that the debt is invalid according to the Supreme Court.

Thorington V Smith in 1868 states:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=75&invol=1

"It is very certain that the Confederate government was never acknowledged by the United States as a de facto government in this sense. Nor was it acknowledged as such by other powers. No treaty was made by it with any civilized state. No obligations of a National character were created by it, binding after its dissolution, on the States which it represented, or on the National government. From a very early period of the civil war to its close, it was regarded as simply the military representative of the insurrection against the authority of the United States."

Quite simply, the woman has a worthless lawyer.