United States Reports, Volume 1 {1 Dall.}
Supreme Court of the United States
1405345United States Reports, Volume 1 {1 Dall.}Supreme Court of the United States


LEE verʃus BIDDIS.

O

N the trial of this caufe, Lewis, for the Defendant, offered evidence to prove what was the money meant to be paid by the contract entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant, under the words current lawƒul money; and cited Morris v. Wharton. [♦]

Sergeant objected to the evidence, and cited 1 Atk. 447. 2. Etate Laws 494. Dav. Rep. 48. 72.

by the court Current lawƒul money, by the pofitive words of the Act of Affembly, means fuch money as is current at the time of entering into the contract ; and, perhaps, the evidence offered, would not fo much contradict and contract ifelf, as that Act of Affembly : it would be to fubftantiate an agreement in direct oppofition to the law. The cafe in Davis, if we could be bound by it at all (which we do not think we can, firft, becaufe it is not a judicial determination ; and, fecondly, becaufe it is before Judges in Ireland) would be in favor of the Plaintiff, if it had not been for this Act of Affembly. But, indeed, if this evidence were admitted, it would open a door to fuch fcene of litigation, that, independent of the Act, the argument ab inconvenienti never applied in greater force.

The evidence was accordingly over-ruled, and the Plaintiff voluntarily fuffered a Nonfuit.