‘‘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
