Case Name: Skipwith v. Baird
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1795-10
Citations: 2 Wash. 165
Docket Number: 
Parties: Skipwith v. Baird.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 694–695

Head Matter:
Skipwith v. Baird.
October Term, 1795.
Sterling Debt — Suit for. — A sterling debt may be sued for without laying the value in current money; if it be laid it is merely surplusage, and will not vitiate; but in such case, the damages should be laid in sterling money; — the verdict and judgment should be for sterling money, and the Court is to fix the rate of exchange.
This was an action of debt brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff, in the Brunswick District Court, upon a protested bill of exchange. The declaration was for ¿120 sterling, of the value of ¿160 current money of Virginia, and 5s. 9 sterling money of the value of 7s. 8 current money the charges of protest, and interest at the rate of 10 per centum per annum upon the said principal sum of ¿120 sterling from the date of the bill. The damages are laid at ¿500 steiling, of the value of ¿666: 3: 4, current money. Upon the plea of nil debet, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered for ¿341: 16, sterling, being the principal interest and charges o'f protest in the declaration mentioned, with interest thereon after the rate of 5 per centum per annum from that day, and the costs; but the said sterling money may be discharged in current money at the rate of 37% per cent difference of exchange. To this judgment a writ of supersedeas was awarded by one of the judges of this court.
Campbell for the plaintiff in error.
This case is precisely like that of Scott’s executors v. Call, (ante vol. 1, p. 115) in which the court decided, that it was error for the declaration to demand the current money value of a sterling debt, which was recoverable only in sterling money.
Another objection to this judgment is, that the declaration is for ¿120 sterling, of the value of ¿160 Virginia currency, and interest after the rate of 10 per centum per annum, with charges of protest; and the judgment, instead of being entered for the principal, damages, and charges as demanded by the declaration, leaving the calculations of the interest *to be made by the clerk when he issued the execution, is for the whole added together in one aggregate sum, the court undertaking the calculation. The inconvenience resulting from this mode of entering up the judgment is, that if a mistake be made by the court, it could only be corrected by a writ of error &c. whereas, if the clerk were to make it, the court might upon motion order it to be amended. ■
Stark for the defendant.
I do not recollect the case of Scott’s executor and Call, and therefore do not know how far it governs this. The last objection is in opposition to the common practice of entering judgments upon protested bills of exchange.
Tbe principal case is cited in Butts v. Shreve, á Fed. Cas. 929.

Opinion:
IvYONS, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action of debt upon a protested bill of exchange. The declaration which is in the usual form, demands the principle, interest, and charges of protest in sterling money, but lays the value of each in current money. Upon the plea of nil debet, the jury found that the defendant did owe the debt in the declaration mentioned generally, without saying that it was in sterling, or in current money. The court gave judgment for the aggregate amount of principle, interest, and charges of protest in sterling money, according to the act of Assembly, and at another day, they entered as usual a general rule settling the rate of exchange at which the sterling judgments of that term were to be discharged.
The hrst objection made to the judgment is, that tne declaration having laid the value of the sterling money as if it had been foreign money, and the verdict being general, it should be considered as given for current money and not for sterling.
The answer to this is, that the debt as well as the damages are demanded in sterling money, and therefore the verdict and judgment must be for sterling money.
But it was contended, that sterling debts could only be sued for and recovered in sterling, and that the laying of the value in current money is erroneous, and for this, the case of Scott's executors v. Call is relied upon.
The value in current money has only been laid through abundant caution, under an idea perhaps, that since our separation from Great Britain, sterling money might be considered like other foreign money and to be sued for as such. But since the laws made before the revolution respecting sterling money debts are still in force, they may still be sued for and recovered, without laying the value in current money, the courts having the *same power to settle the rate of exchange which they formerly had. But although there is no necessity for laying the value of the sterling money,yet if it be laid, it is merely sur-plusage, and will not vitiate the declaration.
The case of Scott's executors and Call was not like the present. It is true that in both, the demand was of a sterling debt, with an averment of the value in current money, but in that case, the damages were considered as being laid in current money because they were laid generally, whereas the demand being an entire one, and the debt being a sterling debt, the damages ought to have been in sterling money likewise, in order that the judgment for the debt and damages might be entered for the same sort of money. The court did not say, that an averment of the value of the sterling money was error, but the demand being in sterling money, it was considered to be improper to depart from that by laying the damages in current money only; and two of the judges who sat in that cause have been pleased to give this explanation of the reasons which influenced their decision in that cause.
Judgment affirmed.