Bogle, Somerville, & Co. v. Vowles

The circumstances to be enquired into, under the act for scaling paper money's, must be such as arise in the contract sued on, shewing that the parties at that time contracted on the idea of no depreciation at all, or one different from the legal scale. In the case of bonds, the circumstances, if admitted at all, must be very strong to induce a departure.

This was a motion for a writ of supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court of Fredericksburg. The petition stated; that William Hewett in his life-time, was indebted to the petitioners for transactions on the 22d June, 1776. This debt was afterwards, to wit: On the 11th day of April, 1777, carried into a specialty, the penalty of which was 400/. and the condition was for payment of 200/. on the first day of August, 1780, with legal interest thereon, from the first day of Augus t, 1778. That Hewett died, and his property was put into the hands of the defendant Vowles, as Sheriff of the County of Stafford, for administration and division, by the Court of the said County of Stafford-, who directed the said bond to be discharged according to the scale of depreciation, upon the 11th day of April, 1777, and that the Court refused to receive proof of the said debt having originated in the year 1776: -That this opinion of the County Court had been affirmed by the District Court of Fredericksburg. To which judgment of affirmance, the petitioners prayed a writ of supersedeas. The bond was for 400/. current money of Virginia; and, was payable to Messrs. Bogle, Somerville Co. of the City of Glasgow. The condition was for payment of 200/. like money, on the first day of August, 1780, with interest from the first day of August, 1778, according to the statement in the petition. There was a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the County Court, which stated the matter mentioned in the petition, and that the plaintiffs offered to prove, that the contract for which the said bond was taken, originated on the 22d day of June, 1776, but that the Court rejected the testimony.