Case ID: ohio-ch_1/html/0162-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wright, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WORTH v. WILSON.
    Contracts barred in other states — statutes of limitation — depreciated currency — dollar.
    . Since 1830, contracts made by non residents, and barred by the statute of limitations of the state where marie, are barred when sued in this state, but the provision for such defence does not reach a suit commenced before its passage and then pending.
    Upon a contract to deliver salt, in 1818, it is competent to ask a witness in cross-examination, if he did not estimate by Kentucky currency, then depreciated, and what was the rate of depreciation.
    It is incompetent to introduce oral evidence to explain the value of the term dollar, in a contract.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas. The suit below was upon an accepted order for the delivery of salt, drawn and accepted in Virginia in 1818. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and the statute of limitations of Virginia; upon which issues were joined. During the trial, a witness under examination proved the value of salt in 1818, in Virginia, to be one dollar a bushel. He was asked ' on cross-examination by the defendant, if the currency of Kentucky, which was the prevailing currency there at that time, was not depreciated below specie. This question was objected to and ruled out. An exception was taken and sealed, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.
    
      Nye, for the plaintiff in error,
    made two points on this record to reverse the judgment.
    1. That the issue under the statute of limitations of Virginia, was not legal. 2. That the court below erred in rejecting the evidence as to the value of the currency.
    
      Vinton, contra.
   Wright, J.

The act of 1830, 28 O. L. 34. contained the first legal provision allowing defendants in this state to plead the statute ‘ of limitations of another state. By that law, when the parties to the contract resided out of this state at the making of the contract, and the suit is barred by the laws of the state where the contract was made, if the defendant afterwards remove into this state, or is sued here, the bar in the state of the contract is made a good defence to an action here. This suit was brought before the passage of that act, and of course is not within its provisions. The plea, therefore, was improperly admitted.

The court below erred also in rejecting the evidence of the depreciation of the currency. The object was to ascertain how much money the salt which the defendant agreed to deliver, was worth at the time and place agreed upon for its delivery; and if the witness estimated that' value at a dollar a bushel in Kentucky currency, it was competent to ascertain what relation that currency bore to money. This was not a case of an attempt to explainwhat the term dollar means in a written contract; if it were, it would be inadmissible evidence.

The judgment below is reversed with costs, and the case remanded for further proceedings.