Case ID: johns_4/html/0124-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin and others against Franklin and others.
    ALBANY,
    February, 1809.
    When a person in New-York, purchases goods in England, and, is sued here, the creditor can recover the amount, at the par qf exchange oniy, and is not ~ntitied to a1~y allowance for the rate of exchange, or for the price of bills oa England.
    THIS was an action of assuinpsit,for goods sold and delivered, and on an insimul coniputassent. The plaintiffs are merchants in Liverpool, and it was admitted that the debt was contracted in Great Britain, that the accounts between the parties is in sterling, and that the interest is calculated at 5 Per cent. the legal interest in Great Britain. In the declaration, all the counts, except the last, state the defendants as being indebted to the plaintiffs in the city of New-York, and the last count lays the venue in New-York, but does not mention any particular place, at which the defendants were indebted.
    It was admitted to be a general practice among merchants, that when debts contracted and due in Great Britain, are paid in New-York, to pay according to the current rate of exchange, whether it be above or below par, though there seemed to be some diversity of opinion, and practice, on the subject.
    In calculating the damages in this case, six per cent. was included, besides the interest, being the rate of exchange above par, at the time the suit was brought. The only question was, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the six per cent, or whether the debt was to be paid at the par of exchange. The case was argued by Brinkerhqff, for the plaintiffs, and Golden for the defendants ; and the same course of reasoning was pursued, as in the last case of Hendricks v. Franklin.
    
    
      Brinkerhoff
    
    observed, that in this case it was a debt contracted in England,, and that, therefore, the plaintiff being entitled to his money there, ought to be allowed the price of bills, or rate of exchange it would cost to remit the money to that country.
    
      Colden
    
    said, in reply, that its being a contract for the purchase of goods in England, could not vary the rule. It is the same case, as that of every other debt contracted in a foreign country, and sued for here, where the creditor must receive payment, in the current money of the country. The debtor has nothing to do with the rate of exchange.
   Per Curiam.

The debt is to be paid according to the par, and not the rate of exchange. It is recoverable and payable here to the plaintiffs or their agent; and the courts are not to inquire into the disposition of the debt, after it reaches the hands of the agent. He may remit the debt to his principal abroad, in bills of exchange, or he may invest it here on his behalf, or transmit it to some other part of the United States, or to other countries, on the same account. We cannot trace the disposition which is to take place, subsequent to the recovery, nor award special damages upon such uncertain calculations. All that the plaintiffs can ask, is their debt, justly liquidated and paid, in the lawful currency of the United States.

Judgment accordingly.