Case Name: Thompson Plf. in Err. versus Musser: Two Actions
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1789-09
Citations: 1 Dall. 458
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thompson Plf. in Err. versus Musser: Two Actions.
Judges: 
Reporter: Dallas
Volume: 1
Pages: 458–469

Head Matter:
Thompson Plf. in Err. versus Musser: Two Actions.
These actions were removed by writs of Error from the Common Pleas of Lancaster County; and, on return of the respective records, the proceedings appeared to have been as follow:
I. On the first, or larger, record, it appeared, that a Capias in an action of Debt in the Detinet, issued at the suit of John Musser against John Thompson, for 200,000 weight of tobacco; and the declaration set forth a penal bill, dated the 3d of January, 1784, by which John Thompson binds himself in the penalty of 200,000 weight of net crop tobacco, of the inspection of Fredericksburgh, or Falmouth, on Rappahannock river, in Virginia, to pay 100,000 weight of tobacco, of the same inspection, to John Musser, or his assigns, as soon as it could be collected of those who are indebted to the said John Musser, and the Obligor; but the said John Thompson agrees, that, in case it cannot be collected, or obtained, he will be answerable for the same.”—After Oyer of the bill, the defendant pleaded payment, the Plaintiff replied non solvit, and thereupon issue was joined.
The cause was tried at Lancaster, on the 7th of December, 1786, when the Plaintiff below gave in evidence the penal bill stated in the declaration, upon which, an indorsement was made and subscribed on the 25th of May, 1785, that “ it was agreed by the parties, that the within tobacco should be settled at the current price at Fredericksburgh, on the 1st of May, 1784; at which time the within bond is considered due, and is to carry interest from the date.” There was, likewise, a receipt on the back of the bill, signed by Musser's attorney in fact, on the 5th of July, 1785, acknowledging that he “ received the within bill in full.”
On behalf of the Defendant below, two indentures were given in evidence, from which, it appeared, that the Plaintiff and Defendant had entered into a copartnership, for carrying on an inland trade during a limited period; and on the indenture last made between them, a memorandum was endorsed, dated the 3d of January, 1784, setting forth the receipt of the two penal bills, on which the present actions were brought, and declaring that the same, when paid, were to go in discharge of what was due from Thompson to Musser. Several letters were read from the latter to the former, in which it was confessed, “ that Musser had no other claim, but upon these bonds, against Thompson, and that every pay ment which had been made since they were given, was on their account. The payment of a note for £.46 was then proved, and an agreement, which had been entered into by Musser, that “ on the payment of £450 specie, and the remainder that may appear due in warrants on the Treasurer of the State of Virginia, which are received there in taxes at par, or equal to gold and silver, allowing Musser at the rate of 12½ per cent, on the whole amount of the said warrants, the same shall be a sufficient discharge of the bill.” To prove the payment of Virginia warrants, according to the terms of the foregoing agreement, a receipt was produced from Musser’s Attorney, dated the 5th of July, 1786, to this effect: “Received from John Thompson, £.1668. 11. 6½ Virginia currency in warrants on the Treasury of Virginia, which is settled in specie, at £ 1 84. 4. 4. Virginia currency ; being in full payment of his bond to John Musser, dated the 3d of January, 1784, for 100,000 weight of net crop tobacco, of the inspection of Fredericksburgh, or Falmouth, in Virginia.” And, in order to shew that the warrants thus paid, were receivable in taxes, at par, or equal to gold and silver, the Counsel for the Defendant below, offered to read an act of the Legislature of Virginia, (which contained a recital of a preceding act) on that subject, from a pamphlet, stitched in blue paper, with the following title page:—“ Acts passed at a General “ Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, begun and held at “ the public buildings in the city of Richmond, on Monday the “ 3d day of May, in the year of our Lord 1784.—Richmond: Printed “ by John Dunlap, and James Hayes, Printers to the Common- “ wealth.” But the reading this act being objected to, on the ground, that it was not legally authenticated, the Court over-ruled the evidence; and a Bill of Exceptions to their opinion, was tendered and allowed.
The Jury gave a verdict for Musser, saying, that “ They find “ 114,236 weight of net crop tobacco, of the inspection of Fre- “ dericksburgh, or Falmouth, on Rappahannock river, to be due to “ the Plaintiff from the defendant, value £2000, with sixpence “ damages and sixpence costs.” Whereupon judgment was entered generally.
II. On the second, or smaller, record, it appeared, that an action of debt in the detinet, for 200,000 weight of net crop tobacco, of the inspection of Richmond, or Petersburgh, in Virginia, was brought on another penal bill of the sam date, by which “ John Thampson binds himself in the penalty of 200,000 weight of tobacco, to pay to John Musser, 100,000 weight of tobacco, of the last mentioned inspection, at or before the 1st of May next ensuing the date of the bill.” The pleadings were the same in this, as in the preceding case; but the declaration being erroneously for tobacco of the inspection of “ Fredericksburgh, or Falmouth, in Virginia, on Rappahannock river,” the Plaintiff's counsel, after the Jury were sworn, moved to amend the declaration, agreeably to the tenor and pur port of the writ, by striking out those words, and inserting, “ Richmond, or Petersburgh;" which the Court allowed, without the consent of the Defendant, and directed the same Jury to be again immediately sworn for the trial of the cause. This being done, and the Jury gone from the bar, the attornies of both parties, signed an agreement, that, “ as it was then very late, the Prothonotary of the Court might receive the verdict, and that, if necessary, they would afterwards mould it into form.”
The verdict then finds, “ 17,853 weight of net crop tobacco, of the inspection of Richmond, or Petersburgh, in Virginia, to be due to the Plaintiff from the defendant, on the bill aforefaid, and the true value thereof to be £446. 6. 6. Pennsylyania currency, with sixpence damages, and sixpence costs:" Whereupon judgment was also entered generally.
Upon these records the general errors were assigned, and in nulloest erratum pleaded in both causes. They were argued together, first at Lancaster, and, afterwards, in two different, terms, at Philadelphia, by Bradford, Lewis, and Wilfon, for the Plaintiff in Error; and by Chambers, Hartley, Yeates, J. B. M'Kean, Sergeant, and Ingersoll for the defendant.
The specific errors alledged against the first record, were four: 1st. That the declaration is for the penalty in a penal bill, but it omits to state, that John Thompson did not pay the smaller quantity of 100,000 weight of tobacco, or a certain sum of money in lieu thereof, on the day fixed for the payment; so that no cause of action is shewn to have accrued to the Plaintiff below for the penalty.
2d. That this being an action of debt in the detinet, the verdict is erroneous, because it finds 114,286 weight of tobacco to be due to the plaintiff from the Defendant, and the true value thereof to be £,2000, which they find of debt, &c. because the finding, being of so much tobacco due to the plaintiff, is not an express determination of the issue, which is solvit and non solvit; and because the finding is not of all that was in issue, since the declaration is for 200,000 weight of tobacco, but the verdict is only for 114,286, and nothing is said of the rest.
3d. That the judgment is erroneous, because, ensuing the nature of the verdict, it is for the value of the tobacco in money, and not for the tobacco itself; or, if that cannot be had, for the value thereof in money.
4th. That the Court below were in an error, in over-ruling the evidence of the printed copy of the act of Assembly of Virginia, which purported to have been printed by the law printers of that Commonwealth, respecting the nature and value of Treasury warrants, or certificates.
The second and third of these errors, were also alledged and applied against the smaller record, with an additional exception, to wit,—That after the Jury had once been sworn, the Court, without the consent of the Defendant below, discharged them, per mitted the Plaintiff to amend his declaration, swore the Jury again, and neither gave the Defendant an imparlance, nor ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs occasioned by his faulty declaration.

Opinion:
The causes being held under advisement for a considerable time, in hopes that a compromise would take place between the parties, The Judges now delivered their opinions separately and at large.
M'Kean, Chief Justice:
The arguments on the records before the Court, have been ably and learnedly enforced. To these, and to the authorities produced on both sides, I shall briefly refer, while I consider in their order, the objections that have been made in favour of the Plaintiff in Error.
1. In support of the first objection, a variety of precedents have been shewn of declarations upon penal bills from 1 Mod. Ent. 180. 281. Brown's Mod. Intrandi, &c. &c. and the following books were cited: Doug. 658. 8 Co. 133. 4 Bac. Abr. 13. 7 Co. 10. a. 4 Bac. Abr. 16. 363. 5 Bac. Abr. 321. 1 Cro. E. 548. 2 Cro. 183. 500. Cro. C.515. Hob. 82. 232. 12 Mod. 81. 1 Bulstr. 163. Salk. 662. 2 L. Raym. 814. Carth. 322. Doctrin. Placit. 829. Co. Litt. 303.
But the Counsel for the Defendant in Error have answered these cases, by urging, that over of the penal bill was prayed and granted; that the Defendant below pleaded in chief to the declaration, payment, and joined issue; and that the verdict was for the Plaintiff below. They contended, that the Plaintiff was only bound to prove the gift of the action; that it was not incumbent on him to prove that the smaller quantity of 100,000 weight of tobacco was not paid; that under the act for defalcation (1 State Laws 48.) the Jury are to find the sum really due; and that the defect, if it was one, is cured by pleading over in chief, and, also, by the verdict. In corroboration of these positions, they cited, Doug. 658. 8 Co. 133. Vaugh. 93. 4. 5. 4 Bac. Abr. 19. 16 Hob. 199. 1 Lill. Pract. Reg. 418. Cro. C. 209. 5 Com Dig. 57. 58. 60. 1 Mod. 169. 1 Salk. 37. 38. 133 8 Mod. 356. 1 Lev. 190. 12 Mod. 44. Cro. 1. 668. Tri. per pais. 289. 290. 306. 307. 368, Cro. Car. 515. Cro. E. 68. 12 Mod. 459. 414. Carth. Rep. 80. 94. 2 Will. 380. Cowp. 407. 1 Stra. 233. 2 Stra. 925. 1006. 1011. 1 Will. 255. 1 Salk. 9. Bull. N. P. 147. 148. 3 Black. 410. Barr. on Stat. 193. 2 Black. 406. 1 Vent. 108. 114. 122. 156. 1 Com. Dig. 60. 2 Vent. 153. Keelw. 187. b. 7 Rep. 10 a. 9 Vin. Abr. 599. pl. 1. 10 Vin. Abr. 3. pl. 1. 16 & 17 Car. 2. c. 8.
We are clearly of opinion, that this defect in the declaration, with respect to the averment, cannot now be taken advantage of as an error. It might indeed, have been fatal on demurrer; but, at this period of the cause, it is cured by the plea in bar, by the verdict, and by the statutes of Jeoffails. The defendant below pleaded payment, which admits the declaration to be good. 10 Vin. Abr. 3. pl. 12. The penal bill became a part of the record by the oyer; and if the Jury had not been satisfied, that the smaller quantity was not paid, they would never have given a verdict for 114,286 weight of tobacco. This was the very thing litigated and determined; and it was the province of the Jury, under the act of defalcation, to ascertain the balance, which must have appeared from the evidence. The verdict, therefore, also aids the omission of the averment. See 3 Black. Com. 394. Carth. 389. Jenk. Cent. 21. ca. 39. Ibid. 288. ca. 24. Several of the cases cited on both sides do not apply; but all the late authorities (many of which are in point) support our judgment on this occasion. Those cases which bear a contrary aspect, occurred before the last of the statutes of Jeossails, and previous to the more liberal decisions of modern Judges. 2 Burr. 756. The general rule, however, is now well established, that if a Plaintiff states his title in his declaration in a defective manner, it will be cured by a verdict; but not so, if the title is totally defective in itself. Cro. E. 778.
2. The second objection is to the verdict; and to prove the invalidity of that, the Counsel for the Plaintiff in Error, have cited, Cro. J. 681. Yelv. 71. 2 Roll's Abr. 693. tit. Verdict pl. 5. Vaugh. 75. 4 Com. Dig. 145. 1 Inst. 227. Cro. Jac. 31. Cro. E. 133. 2 Stra. 1089. 2 L. Raym. 1581. 3 Lev 55.
To this the Defendant's Counsel have replied, that strict form in a verdict is not now required; that it needs only to be understood what the intention of the Jury was, agreeably to which the verdict may afterwards be moulded into form; that the constant practice in all the Courts in this State, as well before as since the Revolution, has been to enter the verdicts on the issue of non solvit in the manner that has been used in the present case; that the intention of the Jury is plain; and that the mode of entering their verdict is the act of the Clerk.—Hob. 54. Co. Litt. 227. a. Salk. 328. pl. 2. 2 Lill. Abr 798. 4 Bac.Abr. 58. 59. 99. 5 Bac. Abr. 297. 298. 314. 2 Burr. 700. Cro.E. 664.
The Court, concurring in these reasons, cannot allow this exception.
3. That the judgment is for money, and not for the tobacco itself, or, if that cannot be had, then for the value thereof, makes the third objection ; in support of which the following books are cited : Yelv. 71. 8 Fin. Abr. 41. pl. 15. 17. 18.
But it is contended on the other side, and such is the opinion of the Court, that if the verdict is good, the judgment must likewise be so; for being entered generally, when it is drawn at large, it may be put into form ; and the merits having been tried, justice must be obtained without being entangled in technical niceties.— Cro. J. 502. 6 Mod. 270. 1 Wils. 1. 2 Stra. 931. 1013. 1 Sid. 376. 5 Mod. 227. 1 Vent. 119. 2 Wils. 380. Corp. 407.
4. The last error assigned in this record, respects the refusal of the Court of Common Pleas to admit the Defendant below to read in evidence, a copy of an act of Assembly of the State of Virginia, printed by the Law Printers there, and stitched up, with a few other acts, in a blue paper cover.
To maintain this objection, it has been argued, that in Great-Britain a public act of Parliament is proved by the printed statute book; that a general history is a proof of a general transaction, though not of a particular one; that this is a general act, and promulgated in the usual mode of promulgating the laws of Virginia; that by the fourth article of the late Confederation, the Courts are obliged to take notice of the acts and proceedings of other States, as much as if they had occurred here; and that the ordinances of France, the laws of the Danish islands, proclamations in our sister States, the statutes of England, Ireland, and Scotland, heralds' books, and registers', have frequently been read in evidence in this Court, because of their public notoriety. 12 Mod. 86.215. 216. 403 12 Vin. Abr. 119. 1 Atk. 47. 2 Eq. Abr. 406. 409. Cowp. 407. Gilb. L. E. 13.
3In opposition to these arguments, it was contended, that the laws of Virginia ought to be proved as other fa£ts in foreign countries; that in Great-Britain private statutes must be proved, either by sworn copies, or authenticated under the Great Seal; that every man is, indeed, obliged to know the laws of his own country, for they are presumed to be in every man's breast, and the statute book contains hints of them; but the laws of Virginia are unknown in Pennsylvania, and are not in any wife obligatory upon us; that the reason why private statutes must be proved before they cam be received in evidence, applies strongly to foreign ails of Assembly, for no man is obliged to know them ; that an act of Assembly in print is no better verified than if it were in writing only; that this act of Assembly might have been forged, or repealed, and yet, it would be impracticable on a bidden, pending a trial, to prove it; and that there is no precedent of a determination of any Court, that such a copy is good evidence; for, indeed, it militates against the general rule of evidence, " that the bell evidence the nature of the cafe will admit, ought to be produced," and a sworn copy ,compared with the votes might have been had, or some other regular authentication. Gilb. L. E. 4. 5. 13. 16. 17. 12 Mod. 403. 12 Vin. Abr. 129. pl. 59. Ibid. 119. 120. 1 Salk. 121. Cowp. 174. Free, in Chan. 207. 1 Lill. Abr. 207. 3 Salk. 154. Doug. 1. 572. Bull. N. P. 21. Old Law of Ev. 66. Tri. per Pais, 232. 3 fourn. of Cong. 493. 12th November, 1777.
This subject has been very ingeniously discussed. It is in a great measure new; so far, at least, that it does not appear to have come formally before any Court, 'till it arose in the present cause at Lancaster. But, at the same time, I must remark, that I never heard 'till then of such evidence being refused; and, without opposition, I am certain it has very frequently been admitted.
Our law is not confined to particular precedents and cases, but consists in the reason of them; for, the reason of the law, is the life of the law. I admit, that this printed copy of an act of assembly, though it purports to have been printed by the law printers of Virg inia, is not such good evidence as a sworn copy, compared with the rolls, or an exemplification under the Great Seal; but these modes of authentication are, likewise, inferior to the original law itself. If the Plaintiff in Error had been sued in Virginia, this printed book of the acts of Assembly would there, unquestionably, have been good evidence; and I can discern no satisfactory reason, why, as he is sued here, the same evidence should not be received, at least prima facie ; for, although it were a forgery, and the proof in that respect, could not on a sudden, during the short period of a trial, be produced; yet, in case of any reasonable suspicion, the Court might reserve the point, and give the party leave upon establishing the fact, to move for a new trial.
Lord Chief Justice Willes says, in the case of Omichund v. Barker, 1 Atk. 21. that " the rules of evidence are to be considered, as posisitive artificial rules, framed by men for their convenience in respect to the transaction of business in the Courts of Justice;" but there has been no rule established, as far as my knowledge extends, concerning the evidence now under consideration. It has been a rule in the Courts of Great-Britain, " to allow such proof as they beyond the sea will allow." This, however, must be subject to restrictions; And, although the general principle and rule of evidence is, " that the best evidence the nature of the thing will admit, shall be given," yet, by constant practice and allowance of the Judges, this rule is frequently dispensed with. Were it not, indeed, for this, controversies in Courts of Justice would be entangled with too many difficulties, and attended with too great trouble and expence, to permit men to seek for redress of many wrongs in a legal way. The same reason, that would induce this Court to require a law of Virginia to be proved as any other fact, must, induce them to insist upon the like proof of the Laws of every other State, kingdom, or empire, however remote; a position pregnant with intolerable inconvenience; destructive to trade, commerce, and credit; and, in several cases, fatal to justice.
Though the practice of the Courts, or forms of pleadings, which pass sub silentio, do not make the law; yet, in a case like the present, a constant practice of permitting acts of Assembly, or laws to be read out of printed books, without opposition, is a great evidence of the law; and such printed copies, being of public notoriety, and relied on as genuine, have the presumption of authenticity, in their favor, and afford a reasonable satisfaction to the mind of their truth and accuracy.
Upon the whole, therefore, I am of opinion, that the Court below erred in the rejection of the evidence in question; and that for this cause only, the judgment ought to be reversed.
With respect to the errors alledged against the second record, they have all, except one, been considered and disallowed, in the course of the preceding observations. The one that remains to be decided is, that the Court below, on motion of the Counsel for the Plaintiff there, permitted the declaration to be amended by the writ, after the Jury had been sworn; and then had the Jury sworn again, and received their verdict without consent, without giving the Defendant liberty to plead anew, and without an imparlance, or awarding the payment of costs by the Plaintiff.
In support of this objection, it has been urged, that the amendment was an alteration in substance, and changed the nature of the defence; that there is no precedent of such an amendment after the Jury was sworn, 'therefore, it is hoped, that this Court will not enlarge the precedents of amendments, by making a new one; and that the Court below had no power to discharge the Jury after sworn, without consent; or, if they had, that they ought to have granted an imparlance Stiles' Pract. Reg. 45. 49. Salk. 47. 3 Lev. 347. Carth, 465. 2 Black. Rep. 785. 2 Stra. 890. Fitz. 193. 3 Bac. Abr 236. Gilb. Pract. C.P. 79. 80.
On the other side, it was insisted, that the amendment was ony to make the declaration conformable to the writ; that the merits came before the Jury, and the cause was fairly tried; and that such an amendment may be made at any time. 3 Black. Com. 406. Conyngh. Rep. 43. 2 Burr. 756. 5 Burr. 2834. 3 Lev. 347. Sir T. Raym. 53. 4 Burr. 2569. Cowp. 841. 1 Wils. 7. 4 Bac. Abr. 30. Comb. 13. 2 Vin. Abr. 326.
The Court would willingly support this proceeding, if they legally could; for, they are no friends to exceptions like the present, where the merits have been fairly tried. But we can find no case, or opinion, to favor it in all its parts. I have met with but one, which mentions, that " after a Jury sworn, sometimes a Juror is withdrawn, on purpose that there may be an amendment, if it be not entered upon record " This case was not mentioned at the bar, but is reported in Comberbach 419. Rex v. Edwards.
Suppose, however, that the Court had given the Plaintiff leave to make the amendment before the trial, which they might unquestionably, have done, as the nature of the action was not thereby changed; yet, it was in the election of the Defendant, either to take costs of the Plaintiff, or to imparl to the next term; for, he had a right to advise upon a plea fitting the declaration so amended; or, if the amendment did not, in his opinion, require an alteration of the plea, he might take the costs, and enter the same plea immediately. At all events, I think, he ought to have been allowed, if he pleased, to plead again after the amendment, and so join a new issue. 1 Lill. Abr. 70. d. 71. a. Comb. 58. 2 Stra. 950. And I have found two cases in Judge Jenkins's Centuries, in which it is held, that a Jury discharged before verdict, shall not be charged again, but there must be a new venire facias. Jenk. Cent. 6. ca. 9. Ibid. 283. ca. 13.
Since, then, the facts relating to the amendment appear upon the record, I am of opinion, that the proceeding of the Court below was erroneous: And this judgment, also, ought, therefore, to be reversed.