Case ID: h-mch_4/html/0352-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1799.
    Hoffman vs. Boisneuf.
    Assumpsit on a promissory note executed in the republic of France on the 5th of January 1793, by the defendant, for 27,405 livres, and payable oil demand to Jlnloine Roland Bekeaulme, and two others, and by them endorsed to' the plaintiff. The general issue pleaded.
    Birrs of Exceptions.
    3. The drawees of the note upon which tills action was brought, and the defendant, were citizens of France at, the time the note, was drawn. On the 12th of June 1793, the defendant came to America. The drawees came to America in 1796. In 1790 the French government emitted assignats, which by law were a legal tender in payment of debts contracted in specie; they continued in circulation until 1796, and from the 9th of April until the 10th of October 1793, were a legal tender in discharge of all debts between subjects of that government, residing therein. The name of the plaintiff in this case is only lent to tile drawees. The note is a renewal of one dated in 1786, and was for a specie debt. The drawees on 26tb of September 1792, cohstitutcd the defendant their attorney in fact, by regular letter of attorney, anfchcrising iiim to pay over and place in the hands of French merchants all the money he owed to them, with directions to such merchants to lay the same out in merchandise the most suitable for the markets of the United States, and to insure the same, and to ship the same to different ports in the United States* there to be sold. The giving the note was no revocation of the letter of 'attorney. On the 24th of April 1793, the defendant wrote to C. and B. merchants at Nantz* to pay over all the money Which they had in their hands belonging to him, into the hands of D. S. & Co. merchants at Paris, of which the defendant at the same time informed the drawees of the note. That 13. S. & Co. received orders from the defendant to lay out the said money in merchandise the most suitable to the markets of the United States, to insure and ship the game to different ports in the United States, and this information was also given by the defendant to the drawees, and they were informed, that the money he owed them was included therein, to which they made no objection but seemed pleased therewith. That C. & B. did accordingly, on the 8ih of June 1793, pay over into the hands of D. S, & Co. at Paris, the sum of 200,000 livres, of which 28,002 livres was on account of the note on which this suit is brought, and 28,606 livres on account of a debt due to the drawees from P. Payen. Thai the defendant did not, by any act of his, oblige himself to Invest the money which he owed the drawees in merchandise, or to ledge the money in the hands of any merchant to be invested in merchandise for their use. That when he deposited Use funds in the hands of B. S. & Co. he did not inform them that he deposited any part thereof for the use of the drawees; that he did not, at any time after the shipment of the said goods, or after depositing his funds as aforesaid, inform the drawees that he had deposited any funds on their account, op that they were interested at any time before the 24th of November 1797, although he had corresponded with them by letters until they left France in 1793; and although they lived in his family from November 1786, until the 34th of November 1797. That the drawees never expressed any idea that they were interested In the said shipment of goods, or made any inquiry concerning the result, although they inquired of him relative to another shipment of goods to the amount of 9,000 livres. in assignat funds, farníshed by Mr. Y. and shipped fcy 1). S. k Co. at the same time the other shipment was made. That when the drawees called on the defendant for pay - ment, on the 24th of November 1797, they made no claim on account of the said shipment, but founded their deman(l upen the note; and that the defendant did not then allege that he had deposited the debt he owed them with B. S. & Co. or interested them in said shipment, nor did then offer to pay them what would be due to them on that principle, nor acknowledge their right to receive any payment from him by reason of said shipment; but insisted that even considered as his friends, they were obliged to wait, till by restoration of order in St. Domingo, he should he restored to his estates in that island, and then to be paid their debt out of the first crops which he should receive from those estates. The shipment made by D. S. & Co. was made under the sole direction and orders of the defendant, and to him alone they accounted for the proceeds, and he applied them to his own use. The funds deposited by the defendant were in assignats, and depreciated in value, and liable to depreciation, and the merchandise in which they were invested were not such as were calcinated for the consumption of the markets of the IL S. to which the loss, if a loss was sustained on the said shipment, was owing. Evidence was offered by the defendant to prove that he informed the drawees, on the 24th of November 1797, when they called on him for payment, that they were interested in the shipments made by D. S. & Co. and that he had received no account of the proceeds of the said shipment, that when he did he would settle with them, See. That he made a supposed statement of what he considered would be their proportion of the proceeds of the shipment, which he then offered to pay them, agreeing to correct any error that might, appear when the account of D. S. & Co. should be receivi d, which payment the drawees refused to receive. That the defendant never did receive from D. S. & Co. an account of the proceeds of the shipment until the 12th of June 1798.
    The defendant, by his attorney, then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that if they were, satisfied that the defendant, on 24th of April 1793, with the consent of the drawees, directed C. & R. to pay over to D. S. & Co. French merchants, the amount of the money then due from him to the drawees, and that C. & B, did, in virtue of such direction, pay the same over to D. S. & Co. on the 8th of June 1793, and that B. S. & Co. had orders from the defendant to lay the said money out in merchandise, the most suitable for the markets of the United States, and to insure the said merchandise, and ship the samo to different ports in the United States; and it was agreed between the drawees, and the defendant, that such purchase and shipment should be for and on account of the drawees, that then the note, upon which this suit is brought, is paid off and discharged, and that no action can be sustained thereon, even though the jury should be of opinion that the money so deposited in the hands of D. S. & Co. by C. & B. was in assignats, which were in a depreciated situation.
    Chase, Ch„ J, The. court are of opinion, that the' direction prayed by the defendant’s counsel ought not to he givenj and they refuse to give the same to the jury.
    The defendant excepted,
    2» Further evidence was offered by the defendant, that on the 24th of April 1793, he wrote to C. & B. directing them to pay over to D. S. & Co. all his funds in their hands, and that D, S. & Co. were directed to invest such funds in merchandise, in. the manner herein before statedj that the drawees were informed at the same time, that so much of the said funds as should be sufficient to satisfy the debt due by him to them, was by him thus ordered to be placed in the hands of D. S. & Co, was so to be placed therefor the use and account of the drawees. Also that D. S. & Co. on the 6th of October 1793, shipped goods to America, consigned to different merchants in different ports of the United States, to the amount of 532,762 iivres, in the name of B, J., of New-York, by whom the same was covered as neutral property, although in fact lie had no interest therein! that of the goods afore* sasd, to the amount of 285,762 Iivres, were purchased with the, funds placed in the hands of JX S, & Co, by the defendant on the 8th of June 1793. That from the 1st of September 1792, to the 10th of October 1793> assignats were a legal tender in France tn discharge of debts between subjects of that government. That after the 9th April 1793, a bare tender of assignats was a discharge, but before that time a bare tender in assignats did pot discharge a debt.
    The defendant prayed the opinion of the court, ami their direction to the jury, that the. notice of the letter and order aforesaid of the defendant to C. & B. and his information given to the drawees at that time as above stated, was legal and reasonable notice to them of Ids proceedings under the power of attorney aforesaid, and authorised him to charge them with so much of the shipment aforesaid, as would be equivalent to the debt stated in the note upon which this suit is brought, and would thereby extinguish the said note..
    
      Chase, Ch. J. The court, refuse to give the three-prayed by tlie defendant.
    s- The plaintiff offered evidence to prove, that the defendant liad not given to the drawees any notice of the shipment made by D. S. ft Co, or that they were interested therein, until the 24th of November \797, The plaintiff then prayed the opinion of the court, and their, direction to the jury, that, the drawees were not bound By the said shipment made by D. S. & Co. and obliged to be interested therein, unless the funds, so by the defendant declared to D, S. k Co. to be deposited for their use, were deposited by the defendant with D. S. & Co. for the use of the drawees, or. unless the defendant did inform the drawees, within a -reasonable time, that he had shipped the said goods for their use; and further» that if the defendant did not inform them thereof within the year after tliey came from France, and resided in the, defendant’s family, as offered in evidence-, in that casé, information op notice thereof was not given, in a reasonable time- '
    Chase, Ch. J. The court are, of opinion, and so direct the jury, that the drawees were not bound by, th& shipment made by D. S. & Co. nor obliged to be interested therein, unless the funds were deposited by the defendant with D. S. & Co, for the use of the drawees, and so declared- to be by the defendant to S. & Co. or unless the defendant did inform the drawees within a reasonable time, that he had shipped the said goods for, their use; and that as the (defendant did not inform' the drawees thereof within a year after they carné from France and resided in his family, notice or information thereof was not given to them in a reasonable time.
    The defendant excepted.
    4. in this case Bichará Baits, esquire, was produced as a witness for the plaintiff; but was objected to by the defendant, on the ground of interest; and a witness \vas examined to prove the nature of. his interest, who swore that the plaintiff informed he?*, the witness, that Mr, Belts was answerable to him' for his claim which he had against the drawees in case he, failed, or did not succeed in this suit; and the goods furnished by the plaintiff to the drawees, for Which his claim arose, were so furnished to them on the credit of Mr, Baits, who put the note, on which this suit is brought, into his. hands.
    Chase, Ch. J. The court, on the evidence given, refuse to permit Mr. Bolts to be examined as a witness in tills case.
    
      
      S. In this case the court determined, that where a translation of any foreign language into English was offered in evidence, it must he a literal, and not a liberal translation; and if there were any ambiguous expressions, or phrases of equivocal meaning inserted in the writing, that there should be a translation made of the various meaning of such expressions, end phrases; and that the best way of ascertaining the meaning of the writer was by considering the precedent and subsequent words, and adopting that sense of the expressions which accorded with the meaning of the writer.
    
      Martin, (Attorney General,) and Ghaajj',forthep!ainiifi;
    
      Mason and Winchester, for the defendant,
   Vjjrijject and judgment for the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the judgment of the General Court was affirmed on both Mils of exceptions at November term, 1802.