Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/186

Rh 

1786.

executors, or authorized by them, unlefs the contrary appear. 1Salk 74. 3 Leon. 62.

With refpect to the obfervation, that an award is to be interpreted by its own words, and not by any matter out of it, it is law ; but when the words of an award have relation to things certain, out of the award, thefe things may be averred. 1 Rolls Abr. 264. Stile 365. S.C. And, therefore, as the Executors of John Grier  deceafed are perfons certain, we think that it may be averred, who they are by name, as has been done by the replication in the prefent cafe, were fuch averment neceffary ; for it is only explaining more particularly what was contained in the award itfelf.

Upon the whole, the court is of opinion, that the award in this safe is good. Let judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs. 

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.

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. 

HIS caufe now came before the court on a fpecial verdict, returned upon the trial of an ejectment for a meffuage and lands in the townfhip of Eaʃt-Whiteland in the country of Cheʃter. It was ably argued on the 27th of April,  by Sergeant and Bradƒord  for the defendants, and Lewis  and Wilcocks for the plaintiff; and, Ant. 205.