Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/235

224 

1787.

and goes only for the money received ; and fo far confirms the Defendant's act, as that he cannot gain fay his right to receive it.

As to the Juʃtice of the verdict, it is not fo very apparent as to make us anxious to fupport it, againft the rules of law. Col. Hugg was the Plaintiff's agent in this matter, without any reward. He was an Officer in the American army, and probably thought the fupport of the war depended on the fupport of the credit of the continental money ; it was the only money then in circulation ; and though it had depreciated five or six for one, he might- reafonably think it would not only be injurious to his own reputation, but to the common caufe, to refufe it. All thefe circumftances muft have been known to the Plaintiff, and yet the fuffers the bond and mortgage to remain in his hands. She might have taken the fecurities from him and abided by the confequences of refufing it herfelf. The debtor, White it is true, fwore he did not mean to force the money upon Hugg ;  but it is as true, that when he brought the continental money to difcharge the debt, he brought a Witneʃs with him, which he had not done before when he paid the intereft in hard money. This circumftance might reafonably induce a belief in Hugg that he meant to make a legal tender of the money ; and White, notwithftanding what he fays, might poffibly have availed himfelf of it as a legal tender, in cafe Hugg had refufed the money.

For thefe reafons, I fay, the juftice of the verdict may be well queftioned ; yet if the cafe had been before the jury in fuch a way as that they could legally have given damages according to their difcretion, perhaps, we fhould not have thought it proper to fet afide their verdict, on account of their having, in a doubtful cafe, exercifed their judgment, and drawn different conclufions from the facts. However, as the law is clear, that in this kind of action, the Defendant is liable for no more than he has received, we muft order a new trial. KUHN On the fecond trial of this caufe, the 14th of May 1788, Levy called the Defendant as a witnefs, to prove that the continental bills of credit, which he produced in court, were the identical bills, he received from White, in fatisfaction of the mortgage. But Sergeant objected, that Hugg was not an agent within the meaning of the Act of Affembly, but merely a perfon who had officioufly received the monies of another.

THE COURT rejected the witnefs. And SHIPPEN, Preʃident, obferved, that Hugg appeared to have been an agent to receive the intereʃt ; but, it was evident, that he doubted in his own mind, whether his authority extended any farther ; for, it is in proof, that when he was tendered the principal, he referred the mortgagor to the Plantiff herfelf, who refided in Pennʃylvania. There muft be fome fatisfactory proof of his being actually an agent, before the Court can allow a party to be fworn, under the Act of Affembly, to identify the money in difpute. By the verdict of the fecond Jury, it appears, that they reduced the money according to the feale of depreciation, and added the intereft.