CHAPMAN verʃus STEINMETZ.
T
HIS was an action brought upon a bill of exchange drawn by the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiff, and by him indorfed in blank ; and a count for money had and received &c. was added in the declaration. The bill being returned protefted, a queftion arofe, whether the Plaintiff was entitled to recover twenty per centum damages?
The Defendant contended that the damages ought not to be allowed, becaufe the hill was neither paid, nor accepted, in fatisfaction of the debt for which it was drawn ; and to prove this a receipt was produced from the Plaintiff in the following words:
‘‘ Received 1ft of Sept. 1784 of Mr. Jn. Steinmetz a fet of Bills dated
‘‘ the 30th of Auguft laft on John Bulkley and Co. of Liʃbon for Ł. 478.
‘‘ 17.7 Sterling, which when paid will be in full for the balance of
‘‘account due to the Eftate of the late Wm. Neate or London deceafed.’’
by the court.− It is clear that the bill was neither paid nor received in ʃatisfaction of the precedent debt, but upon the condition of its being honored: it has bot been honored ; confequently, the parties are in the fame fituation, as if it had never been drawn ; and the Plaintiff (who was in fact, agent for the drawer, and to receive the money as his fervant) cannot be entitled to recover damages. See I Shower 163. Debers and al. v. Harriot. The fame point was determined in Watts vs. Willing, tried the laft term.
Upon this opinion, Judgment was entered, by agreement of the parties, for the principal of the original debt, and intereft from the time that the accounts between them were liquidated.
Wilcocks for the Plaintiff. Ingerʃol for the Defendant.
PHELPS et al. verʃus HOLKER et al.
A
FOREIGN attachment iffued in the Hampʃhire county, in the State of Maʃʃachuʃetts, againft the Defendants, to which the Sheriff made return, that “ he had attached one Blanket, fhewn to him as the reputed property of the Defendnts;” and no appearance being entered, Judgment was given for the Plaintiff at the fecond Term. An action of debt was afterwards brought here, upon this Judgment, and a queftion stated for the opinion of the Court,–to wit, “ whether the Judgment was conclufive evidence of the debt?”
Ingerʃoll, for the Plaintiff.−An action of debt lies upon Foreign Judgments ; though, it is true, they are only prima ƒacie evidence of the debt, and may be enquired into Doug. 1. But the Judgment, upon which the prefent action is brought, cannot be confidered as a foreign Judgment, for, it is the record of 2 Court of one of the States of the Union, and, as fuch, it is entitled to ƒull ƒaith and credit in each of them. Art oƒ Conƒed. art. 4.
Bowie, for the Defendant.−Judgments given in one State, are not made obligatory upon the Courts of another, by the Articles of Confederation ; which only provide, that, in matters of evidence,
