Summa Coussr or Penry'ylwni¤.` ry; - l792. § . M*MrNN verfu Owen. law`! Q HIS was an action of covenant on articles of agreement, . I dated 22d january, 1779 ; by which the plaintiil fold I to the defendant a plantation ; and the defendant covenanted to l pay {goo immediately, and lf goo in annual inltalments. T'he l'? iirlt payment was made, an bonds were given for the relidue 5 · J of the money. 6Wha The queltion now principally agitated, was—whether the money was to be reduced by the fcale of depreciation, or to be paid in gold and lilver ? ` The plaimilf ofered awitnefs to prove, that, at the time of the covenant being executed, it was agreed the inltalments ihould he paid in whatever money was current, at the time they becamc due. Ingerfll, on the part of defendant, objected to this teltimo· ny. `T e value of money in contracts between 1776, and 1 78t, is afcertained by the act of Aifembly ( r Val. Dall. Edits p, { No parol proof is to be admitted to contradict this : It has a ways been repelled. It was fo in Lee ·u. Biddi:. 1 Dull. Rep. I75. '1`he bonds which are explanatory of the con- tract are given to be paid in “ lawful money of Pemfylvt- e:ia.” The evidence 0 eredisto vary the agreement. Where the parties reduce the agreement to writing, that alone is the rule. 2 Bl. Rep. I249. Even converfation of the parties at r/ae time of the contract is not admitted, unlefs there is fraud. Brown. Cb. 93. 4. Powell. 430. Ambiguous exprellions are not to be explained by parol proof. So was the cafe of Beuezet and M*C Cvzaehan where proof being oifered to lliew that by the _T;_ _, term “ l`pecie," ufed in a policy of infurance, certain paper bills _ Were intended by the underwriters, it was refufed. _ =. Sergeant, Lewis and Levy, for the plaintiiii urged, that the kind of money was not fpecified, and that this was an ambiguity, · ‘ like that of a devife of a man to his fon _‘folm; when he has two fons of that name. Here were two kinds of money in cir- culation, paper and fpccie; and the patties do not diftinguifh · in Ingers0ll.—Two principles were determined in .lI*C'lenacban 1:. Scar!. I. That a nominal nlaintitf is not for that reafon alone to be rejected. a. That a plaintiIl` is lwt in all cafes liable to pay coils. 1 Barnes n. ro4. A Prarbien Ami ls compellable to pay co·ls ;butifthe plaintiH` is not admissible, neither can a mere trultee be received. Tm-: Covnr inclined to reject the witnels, bntffusrice Smrrnu, doubting. they agreed to adnnthim if the plaimilis inlilled, referving the pnint. He was admitted accordingly, but the verdict being for the defendant, no motion was made. Sec r P. Wms. age. a /1:.4. 229. 3 Ark. 954 604. a Vez. arg. Doug. 1 34a 2 Wi/s·. 37;.
�
