Pringle v. McClenachan
PRINGLE verʃus M‘CLENANCHAN
T
HIS caufe being referres, a report was made in favor of the Plaintiff, to which the following exceptions were filed by the Defendant:1ft. For that the Referres have entirely omitted to charge the Plaintiff John Pringle, with the fum of Ł.146. fpecie. for a lofs on a Policy of Infurance (illegible text) he underwrote to the Defendant, Blaire M‘Cleanachan, upon Brig Nancy, Richty, mafter, on a voyage from Cadix to Philadelphia in 1775.
2. For that in the month of December 1776 there was a ballance due from John Pringle to Blair M‘Cleanachan, of Ł. 2455. 13. 4. as appears by the account (illegible text) furnifhed the Referees;
and yet the Referees, by continuing down to fubfequent items of account in Continental Money, to Auguʃt 1780 (when they ftruck a ballance of Ł. 21191 . 13.0. Continental Money, at 70 for one have reduced the balance of Ł 2455. 13. 4. Specie, due to Blair M‘Cleanachan in 1776, by a fcale of depreciation of 70 for one; fo that inftead of Ł2445. 13. 4.½. Blair M‘Cleanachan has credit for about Ł35 .1.8. ʃpecie.
3. For that in an item of Ł6403. 17. 8. Continental Money, on a tranfaction of November 1778 to the debit of Blair M‘Cleanachan, they have ommitted to charge him with that fum in November 1778, and reduce it by the fcale of 70 for one, as they d the balance in Auguʃt, but have taken that fingle item out of the general, mafs of the account, which amounts to upward of Ł360000, Continental Money, and reduced it by a fcale of 6 for one ; which, upon their own principles, will turn to the difadvantage of Blair M‘Cleanachan Ł975. 16. 7. ʃpecie.
That Blair M‘Cleanachan, in September 1777, drew a bill of exchange on Newry, payable in London, for Ł. 200 ʃterling, in favor of John Pringle, which was protefted ; and the Defendant, Blair M‘Cleanachan, never had notice thereof, until the latter end of 1778, or begining of 1779, and the Referees have charged the Defendant for the fame, the fum of Ł. 656. 19. 3. ʃpecie, and by reafon of the Referees having fcaled the aforefaid balance of Ł.21191. 13. 0. at 70 for one, the faid Blair M‘Cleanachan, has to his credit for the faid bill only the fum of Ł. 8. 11. 5. ʃpecie.
After argument, the president delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
SHIPPEN, Prefident. The court have deliberately confidered this cafe, and are unanimoufly of opinion, that the Referees, although men of knowledge and integrity, have haftily adopted a principle not warranted by law, which, it fanctified by this court, would be productive of manifeft injuftice.
The accounts that had been exhibited by one party to the other, were certainly evidence againft him who exhibited them, as to the articles which they contained, but could not be confidered as evidence, much lefs conclufive evidence, of what was not ftated or diftinguifhed in them ; I mean, the value of the fpecie and depreciated money. This appears to have been a principal fubject of difpute between the parties, and ought to have been a principal fubject of difpute between the parties, and ought to have been open to difcuffion before the Referrees. Yet, under the idea that this was conclufive evidence, they have totally refufed to confider the items of the account as to their real value, or to exercife their judgments upon them ; but, by applying a certain rate of depreciation to the balance of the whole account, they have involved a large fum of hard money in a depreciation of feventy for one. They have alfo fcaled fums which had been omitted in the accounts, in a very different manner from what they have done other advances made about the fame time, by which an unequal meafure of juftice is dealt out to the parties.
1789.
The principle that the Referees adopted, having been taken up before it could be know on which fide it would operate, either beneficially or injurioufly, they are not chargeable with any defigned partiality; but it was furely too hazardous and uncertain an experiment, to be a proper foundation for doing equal Juftice.
Although the court, in the prefent inftance, have entered further into the merits of the cafe, than they ufually do on reports of Referres, they do not think that they depart from the fpirit of former decifions, as they ground their judgment upon the conduct of the Referees in declining the confideration of the moft material fubject of the controverfy ; and that too, upon a miftaken principle, leading to real injuftice to one of the parties.