Holingsworth v. Ogle
SUPREME COURT of Pennʃylvania:
HILINGSWORTH verʃus OGLE et. al.
T
HIS was an action of debt brought upon a bond, dated the 5th of June, 1779 ; the penalty of the bond being in “Ł 200 hard Money computing half Joes at Ł3; ” and the condition, for the payment of “ the full and juft fum of Ł 100 hard Money, or Specie, computing half Joes at Ł3; on the expiration of ƒive Years, from the date, with lawful intereft &c.” The Defendant pleaded Payment, to which the Plaintiff replied, Non Solverunt, and iffue was there-upon joined.It appeared at the trial, that the bond was given in confideration of a fum of Ł 500 Continental Currency, lent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants in June, 1779, when the feale of depreciation eftimates that money at twenty ƒor one.
Ingerʃol and Sergeant, for the Defendants, contended, that the Plaintiff's demand was of an ufurious nature, and fo unreafonable,that it ought not in equity and good confcience to be allowed. They admitted, that the Jury could not fett afide the contract of the parties ; but infifted, that they might, and in this cafe ought to give only damages, according to what was juft and reafonable ; and that they were not bound to find the fum expreffed in the bond. 2 Vern. 402. 121. 1 Atk. 352. 2. Kaims Prine. Eq. 70. 2. Eq. Abr. 186. pl. 9.2 Vern. 14. 10 Mod. 503.
Lewis, for the Plaintiff−This is an action of debt upon a bond, and therefore the cafe of damages is not applicable, unlefs the Jury fhall think proper to give any thing beyond the penalty. There is nothing unfurious or unreafonable in the contract ; for, at the expiration of the five years, in which the bond was made payable, if the continental money had appreciated, the Plaintiff would have been a confiderable lofer. Befides, and Act of Affembly declared, that a
1788.
continental dollar fhould be equal to gold and filver ; and the money, being a legal tender when lent, the Defendant may have paid a fpecie debt with it. Nor can a queftion of ufury be confidered in this action ; for, the Act of Affembly does not make the contract void on that account, as the Engliʃh ftatute does, but only inflicts a forfeiture, equivalent to the money or other article lent, which muft be recovered in another fuit. In the cafe of Lee vs. Biddis,ant. 175. this Court refufed to let in evidence to fhew what was meant by current lawƒul Money, expreffed in the contract, becaufe it would tend to contradict, not only the contract, but likewife the Act of Affembly eftablifhing the feale. Here the contract is exprefly for the payment of hard Money, and as the law only fixes a fcale for the payment of contract in continental Money, where no Tender has been made, the Jury cannot fet afide the folemn act of the parties, but ought to find a verdict generally for the Plaintiff. 2 State Laws 7. 448. 494. 1 State Laws 120.
M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice. The Plaintiff ftates that the Defendant owe him Ł 100, and in order to prove his allegation, he produces their band, dated on the 5th of January, 1779, payable five years afterwards, that is, on the 5th of June, 1781. In anfwer to this demand, the Defendants have pleaded Payment (which in fuch cafes, is made the general iffue by a law of this State) and they have fhewn in fupport on their plea, that the bond in queftion was given in confideration of Ł500 of continental dollars for one in fpecie. Upon thefe circumftances it is to be determined, how much, if any things, the Plaintiff ought to recover in the prefent action.
In cafes for which the pofitive law has clearly and exprefly provided, it is the duty of Courts and Juries to be governed in their decifions, by the rule that is there prefcribed ; for Courts of Chancery, and the general principles of equity, can never be allowed to contradict or defeat the exprefs provifions of a ftatute: And even where there is no Act of Affembly to direct us, the common law, recognized and afcertained by the adjudications of the Courts upon the fame fubject, often furnifhes a guide to which we are bound to yield attention and obedience ; for, the maxim is certainly juft, that it is better the law fhould be determine and fixed, although it were originally erroneous, than that it fhould be precarious and fluctuating, according to the different talents and difpofitions of the Judges, who are appointed to adminifter it. But, in the prefent cafe, the pofitive law is filent; and, though many authorities in the books have been referred to, not one has been difcovered, which is ftrictly analogous to the queftion under our immediate confideration. There is, indeed, an Act of Affembly peffed n the 21st of June, 1781, 2 State Laws 494. the 5th fection of which feems to relate, in fome degree, to the prefent controverfy, when it enacts, that “ all debts ″ &c. granted and contracted for by any deed, will &c. fince the “ 1ft day of January, 1777, which were expreffed to be paid and
1788.
‘‘difcharged in any foreign money, or in gold or filver money of a-
‘‘ ny denomination, or in bullion, or in any commodity, and which
‘‘ have not fince been paid and fatisfied or difcharged, fhall be
‘‘deemed, conftrued and taken to be yet due and owing from debtors
‘‘ to creditors, in fuch money or other commodity, as in the faid
‘‘contracts were expreffed, and the fame may be fued for and re-
‘‘covered in any Court &c. infor much gold or filver money as fhall
‘‘be equal in value to the debt or duty, according to the contract.’’ But the meaning of this fection (and in the interpretation of laws, recourfe muft always be had to the meaning of the Legiflature) is only this ; that, where a contract had been made for payment in fpecie, in foreign gold, in bullion, or in any fpecific commodity, the creditor is entitled to recover according to the ftipulations of that contract. This therefore, does not reach the prefent point ; for, although the bond is payable in hard money, the difpute arifes upon the actual depreciation, which rendered Ł 500, continental money of confiderably lefs real value, at the time oƒ entering into the Contract, notwithftanding the laws of the State had declared it to be equivalent to fpecie, of any denomination then circulating. If, indeed, this had been a bond for the payment of continental money, there is no doubt that, by the Act of Affembly juft cited, only fo much fpecie, as the £ 500 was really worth, could be recovered by the Plaintiff ; but it is a bond for the payment of hard Money, in confideration of a loan of continental Money, and hence the difficulty occurs.
It is unneceffary to review all the authorities that have been read, from the different reports of decrees in chancery ; which have, in general, proceeded upon the ground either of (illegible text) , of fuprize, of the fuggeftion of a falfehood, of the fuppreffion of a truth, or of the unreafonable and unconfcionable nature of the contract itfelf. The laft of thefe being the only cafe that can be applicable to the fubject before us, our enquiry is reduced to one point, to wit, whether the contract now litigated is fo unreafonable in its nature, at to have become iniquitous, and, therefore, ought not to be countenanced in a Court of Juftice ? The arguments appear to be ftrong on both fides, particularly in the two cafes, which have been oppofed to each other, by the contending council. On the one hand, where a man had borrowed Ł1000 in continental money which, before the day of payment had unexpectedly rifen feventy-fold in value, it would certainly be hard to compel him to return Ł70,000 for the ufe of the Ł 1000 which he received: And, on the other hand, it is equally true, that where Ł 500 continental money has been loaned in confideration of a bond for Ł 100 fpecie, the lender can never claim any more than the laft mentioned fum, though a change in the public credit and circumftances, fhould have made the Ł 500 continental money equal to fpecie, and by that means he has fuftained a lots of the difference between the two fums.
It is likewife to be confidered that when the contract was entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendants, the paper medium of the United States was in a very fluctuating condition ; and, though
1788.
the event has fhewn the fallacy of the opinion, there were not wanting many good and intelligent men, who ftrongly maintained, that the continental money would eventually be redeemed, according to its nominal value. This far, however, is clear, that the law, at that time, did not acknowledge the current depreciation, fo that the Defendant might legally have fatisfied any fpecie debt, with the money which the Plaintiff had advances. Nor was it then cuftomary to lend merely for the intereft ; but a practice had prevailed of making loans upon bonds payable in dollars, or for bills of exchange payable in France; and, although very unfurious and exhorbitant profits were thus accumulated, yet it is faid (and I believe it to be true) that there was no law that could prevent, or fupprefs the mifchief. Indeed, after much confideration, this Court entertains the opinion, that there would not be anything illegal in taking a bond for Ł. 200 of the laft ftate emiffion of bills of credit, when only Ł.100 had been lent ; for that paper-money is only made a tender and payment of debts due to the Commonwealth, and, in every other refpect, muft be confidered merely as an article or merchandize. But the cafe before us, is of another nature ; it is that of a bond payable in hard Money, given in confideration of a fum lent in continental Money, which the law then declared to be, in all caʃes, a good and fufficient tender and payment.
Since, therefore, we have no rule to guide us, but the exercife of a legal difcretion, it may be proper to redirect, that it will be as inconfiftent with equity to give too little, as to give too much. If the Plaintiff's demand would amount to feventy or a hundred fold the value of the money he advanced, it would, perhaps, be wrong to allow it ; but, whether a lefs, and what, fum would be an unreafonable profit, muft depend upon a confideration of the advantage which the Defendant might have derived from the loan, the lofs which the Plaintiff might have fuftained, the lenght of the credit given upon the bond, and the poffible infolvency of the obligors. Thefe circumftances certainly entitle the Plaintiff to fomething more than the common intereft of money ; – what advance a Court of Chancery would decree, we cannot afcertain with precifion ; but, it feems, that more than double the fum, has been generally determined to be unreafonable and unconfcionable.
The Court, upon the whole, are unanimoufly of opinion, that in an action of debt, brought upon a bond, and where the iffues is joined upon a plea of payment, the Jury may, and ought to prefume every thing to have been paid, which ex equo et bano, in equity and good confcience, ought not to be paid. Such is the current of the determinations in the Court of Chancery of England ; abd the fame principle is recognized in the cafe of Moʃes and M‘Harlan ; 2 Burr. 1005. for, though the Courts of Juftice cannot alter or deftroy the contract of the parties, they may interpofe to render it confromable to reafon, juftice, and confcience.
RUSH, and BRYAN, Juftices, concurred.
The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff in the fum of Ł 76.10. with fix pence cells.