1-;; Cases ruled and adjudged in the ryga. in the articles which they mean. The auditors appointed under vw`: the atl have this power; Bripduilnall not:‘thg`o3rt have it bzlfo R The rinci leo[Lé:and ` ' was, at e ourtwere und kythg worlds “ current lawful money" and the politive words _ ! . the a£t of Adembly. The proof is necelliry to eife& the
` ` intention of the parties, androprevent an undue and fraudulent
!_ ", J advantage. The cafe in Davir. proves, that, onprin-
_, __ · ciple, this money ouglxtto be paid in fueh coin as ic current at
,___ . . tletime it ir payable; and thea&ofAll'embly oughttobe con- ' ··“ “ · {truedin eonliiijinlpy with this principle. SHIPPEH, or ` :— n oerru IVbilnur, it was deter- mined in this7Court, that fueh proo{might be made 5 and even after judgment by debug; debt cmd} the eaufe {was fent ' toauditorstoafcertain ueor ' 0 mo `. cannot in eonfequence fay fuch proof ought to be rejzged; and this very point has been fettled in that_0f Hur} verfu Kirlbrhfe. Br run Comer :-Let the evidence be heard, and the point referred for the defendant, if he {hall think it proper to move for a new trial. The verdif): being for plaiut£ a motion for a new trial was accordingly made, and argued by lager-/ill, at the fame time with the ea[e_o Feldand Biddle : (Amp. 171 j But the counfelfor the plaintif fubrnitted the point without argument. And Br rn: COURTS-—Til.C rule mult be dtfeharged. · Hrnnmtson wp: Cunxsou. . ASE for mone had and received. Plea, um a um it. ll { C The a&ion wa; brought to recover a fum of mensyfrwiiifch _ the plaintiff claimed as agent for forty-three feamen, to whom 5 · it had been decreed in the Court of Admiralty, as their {hare of in [gb certain prizes taken by the privateer Halbm A writ had been 4 ` ° iifued from the Court of Admiralty, diretited to the defendant, then the Marlhal of that Court, commanding him to deliver ' the money to the plainrilii The defendant made return, that the property in his hands eoniills of certain articles fpeciiied, which he has ready, &c. Afterwards the articles were fold. The defendant’s counfel moved foranonditit, on two grounds. tit. That the aéiion was not maintainable, in the name of the agent. 2d. That it is not of Common Law cognizance, being a qucltion of prize, and to enforce the decree of the Admiralty. . They contended that his appointment under the a& of Adem- hly, did not give him any power to fue in his own name : The vcry term agent implies that he has a mere authority. The a£l: is lilent on the l'ubje€t of fuits, and leaves him to the operatitgrki
�
