Case Name: Anonymous
Court: North Carolina Superior Court
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1795-04
Citations: 1 Hayw. 211
Docket Number: 
Parties: Anonymous.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 211–214

Head Matter:
Anonymous.
Payments made in the depreciated cuvrency prior to 1783, shall discharge the same numerical sum, as their nominal value.
This was an action of debt upon a bond, dated the 21st March, 1776, payable in September, 1776, for 2200 pounds, and payment pleaded. There was also another bond for seven hundred and thirteen pounds, upon which a suit had been instituted in the county court, and payment pleaded to that; and the same payments were there proven, as were now proven to this bond. But it was alleged that these payments were large enough to disr charge both bonds, and the Defendant’s counsel off-red that the amount of the principal and interest of the small bond, might, be deducted from ihe payments now about to be proven, and the balance of the payments only to be applied to the discharge of the present bond. To 'his the court assented — and he proved one hundred and ten pounds sixteen shillings and eight pence, paid the 19th day of January, 1777; nine hundred pounds, the 17th day of Novembér, 1779 ; one thousand two hundred and thirty-seven pounds ten shillings, the 22d day of Jatina-ry, 1780,; .and ten thousand pounds the 26sh of May, 1780. All of these .sums but the first, were in depreciated money, and if reduced into money of the preseni currency, by application of the scale at the several times of payment, would amount to about the sum of three hundred and forty-nine pounds four shillings and ten pence. But if taken as payments according to the nominal value when paid, both bonds were discharged. The counsel for the. Plaintiff contended, that the payments ought to be scaled, and that this had been the practice of ihe courts heretofore in divers instances — that to allow them as payments according to the nominal amount, would be injustice to the Plaintiff, as his bonds would then be discharged by one tenth of their value; and he urged that the made being mneh beyond the sums contained in we bonds, afforded an evidence, tha* the Defendant believed itimself bound to pay as much of the depreciated money as was equit.de»* in real value to the stmts mentioned in th'1 bonds. He argued further, that the Legislature intruded payments made in the time of the war, to be reduced by the scale to their real value; for 1783, <% 4. s. 11. repeals ¡be tender laws, so far as they related o the payment of debt; and by sec. 7th, have ousted all ple.-s of tendee with an always ready, alleged to be made itr fhe time of the war, unless such pleas be accompanied with affidavits stating that the sun* tender d. was equal at the time oí (he tender, to tire debt or damage demanded, according to the then depreciation ; and as no tender of (he nominal debt made in times of depreciation is good, as by this act it clearly is not, by the same reason no payment made in depreciated money, ought to pass to tire credit of a bond for more than its real value.

Opinion:
Per curiam,
it hath been the constant practice ever since tin passing of this act, that payments made in the tiine of depreciation, should discharge as muen of the debt as sue!) payments nominally amounted to. A contrary decision at this time, would revive many of the old disputes that have been settled by that rule, and produce much litigation. When payments were made in depreciated money in the time of the war, they were generally understood to he eqiu.l to the same nominal sum in the bond — both sums were equally depreciated — both the money in the bond and money paid. Had the creditor sued for his debt he could have recovered no more than as much depreciated money as numerically equalled his l^e^' When lie received depreciated money for hi- debt pound for pound, or shilling for shilling, he received precisely what the law allowed him, and what i' would have compelled the debtor to pay. Under the laws then existing, the debtor was discharged pro tanto, according to the numerical sum ; and the act oí 1783 did not intend to lay any new charge upon the debtor to which he was not subject before, or from which he had been discharged under the operation of the tender laws, and payments made before that time — nor is it clea* the Legislature could have thus subjected him, had they been so inclined. The act of 1783, meant only to repeal the tender laws, so that they should not operate for the future. not <o destroy the effect ami operation of the laws upon transactions 'hat bad nlteady taken place under them.— It mim* he admitted that a payment made in the time of the war of the whole numerical.sum due «non-a bond, is a legal diseharge of that hood, althougli tin re. 1 value of the payment was much inferior i=> die real value of the money mentioned in die bond v the time of the contract; for no instance ever occurred since the war, where such p:ymen* has been reduced by the scale- — and if the law be so in case of full payments, so it is also in case of partial ones. The case now before us is that of a full payment.. Indeed, it is not founded in justice, that the creditor shall receive the fell value ofhis money, and be exempted < niire'y from all loss by depreciation, win*., the .debtor, who perhaps procured the money, or securities foe tnoo.y, at an early period, when the currency was bn1 little, if at ail rieprei iated, intending therewith to pay off Ins debt shall !> allowed only the real »aluc, when he received from luc dehorn and o¡dd it to his creditor, and very likely did tins at the request of his creditor.— Depreciation vva« a consequence of ts-e war carried on, as well for the benefit of the ¿¡editor as the debtor, and he ought at least to heat a pari of this burthen. As to the argumets' drawn from die fth sec, of the act of CSd. that act st- pped the cirriiliHiou of the depreciated paper currency, and bad it nos made some provision for the cases of lenders made in the time of dcpveci¡!*io:«, tho Plaintiff wherever a legal tender hud been mude, would by the oneraiion of this act, have been barred forever.— The Defendant might have pleaded the tender with an always ruidy, and have paid the money that had been tendered into court, leaving the Plaintiff no other alternative, but to take that or join issue ; in which latter case, if the plea proved to lie true, he was bam-d. This would have been a ease of hardsldo. especially where the money fiad been refutu-d because of its great inadequacy in point of value to the contract — his hardship was prevented by Hie clause in question. ¡t says nothing of payments actually made — -it only provides against a total loss of the deb; where the Plaintiff has not received the money, and only extends tocases after a certain day when the money had bicorne greatly depretiated. m-< to cases before. It ouK ¡-laces the debtor, who hud made an unconscionable tender, in the same situation - ith one who had mudo no tender at all. But tfrs Is a very differ ent tiling from a payment actually made and accepted, and understood at the time to be a discharge. But if the reason of Míe, thing be not in opposition to tiie doctrine contended for on the part of the Plaintiff, the constant practice of our courts hath-been; and we ought not to render the law uncertain by a contrary decision. — » The Plaint iff suffered a nonsuit.