Case ID: scl_1/html/0062-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Williamson against Bacot.
    
      , A tender made of paper currency in iiaf/gone6 out (thougi^tiie act remained um-epealed making it a goodf ’under situationlmiof thatperiod at
    DEBT on bond for 1,000/. old currency. Plea of ten» , ^*er*
    On die trial it was proved, that on the 1st of January, 1781, the full amount of the bond was tendered in paper nao» ney, and that the plaintiff refused to accept it. A special verdict was found by the jury, submitting to the court at Charleston, whether diis was a good tender in law or not.
    Parker, for defendant,
    relied on the act of 1778, which auth°rised the issuing of this paper currency, and made it a tender in all cases whatsoever. This act was not repealed till the Jacksonborough assembly, in January, 1782; consequently all tenders made between those two periods, whilst the act was in full operation and force, were good and effectual in law, and as such ought to be supportéd in our courts.
    
      Bay, in reply.
    The act of 1778, it is true, has made this money a legal tender, but it was under an idea that the money had a real value: for, it cannot be supposed that a legislative body would have made any thing a tender in payment of just debts, unless it had a value attached to it. If, then, this was the idea of the- legislature, how can it be conceived, that they had it in contemplation to make it a tender longer than it had some value. It is notorious, that after the surrender of Charleston, the money neyer had any circulation ; of course, no value. It then became extinct; yet the tender pleaded, was made upwards of eight months subsequent to that event. Under these circumstances, therefore, it would be extremely iniquitous to give it a legal sanction, when it was absolutely good for nothing. As to the existence of the law of 1778, till the year 1782, there was no legislative body to repeal it, for the British forces, at the period the tender was made, had possession of the greatest part of the state. Had there been a legislature, there is no doubt but what that act would have been repealed. One of the first acts which the Jacksonborough assembly passed, after the enemy were driven within their lines, was to repeal this law. And the sense of the country was clearly expressed by the depreciation act, passed at the same session, which carries down the scale of depreciation no farther than the capitulation of Charleston. Had it been their idea or view, that this kind of paper should be considered as having any value, they certainly would have carried down, or have continued the scale, after that period, to some other time, ©r probably down to the time of passing the depreciation law itself, in January, 1782. As they did not, it was a virtual repeal of the tender law, after that event had taken place.
   By the Court.

This tender, made after this species of thoney had gone out of circulation, is certainly no bar to the plaintiff’s recovery. Under the peculiar circumstances and situation of the state at that period, no court of justice could uphold a plea of this kind. The depreciation act fixes the lowest period of its legal existence down to the 10th of May, 1780, and no further. To give, therefore, any efficacy to a tender made after that time, would, in fact, be to revive and give it circulation, after it was sunk and good for nothing.

Let the plaintiff have his postea.