Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/271

260 

1788.

the event has fhewn the fallacy of the opinion, there were not wanting many good and intelligent men, who ftrongly maintained, that the continental money would eventually be redeemed, according to its nominal value. This far, however, is clear, that the law, at that time, did not acknowledge the current depreciation, fo that the Defendant might legally have fatisfied any fpecie debt, with the money which the Plaintiff had advances. Nor was it then cuftomary to lend merely for the intereft ; but a practice had prevailed of making  loans upon bonds payable in dollars, or for bills of exchange payable in France; and, although very unfurious and exhorbitant profits were thus accumulated, yet it is faid (and I believe it to be true)  that there was no law that could prevent, or fupprefs the mifchief. Indeed, after much confideration, this Court entertains the opinion, that there would not be anything illegal in taking a bond for Ł. 200 of the laft ftate emiffion of bills of credit, when only Ł.100 had been lent ; for that paper-money is only made a tender and payment of debts due to the Commonwealth, and, in every other refpect, muft be confidered merely as an article or merchandize. But the cafe before us, is of another nature ; it is that of a bond payable in hard Money, given in confideration of a fum lent in continental Money, which the law then declared to be, in all caʃes, a good and fufficient tender and payment.

Since, therefore, we have no rule to guide us, but the exercife of a legal difcretion, it may be proper to redirect, that it will be as inconfiftent with equity to give too little, as to give too much. If the Plaintiff's demand would amount to feventy or a hundred fold the value of the money he advanced, it would, perhaps, be wrong to allow it ; but, whether a lefs, and what, fum would be an unreafonable profit, muft depend upon a confideration of the advantage which the Defendant might have derived from the loan, the lofs which the Plaintiff might have fuftained, the lenght of the credit given upon the bond, and the poffible infolvency of the obligors. Thefe circumftances certainly entitle the Plaintiff to fomething more than the common intereft of money ; – what advance a Court of Chancery would decree, we cannot afcertain with precifion ; but, it feems, that more than double the fum, has been generally determined to be unreafonable and unconfcionable.

The Court, upon the whole, are unanimoufly of opinion, that in an action of debt, brought upon a bond, and where the iffues is joined upon a plea of payment, the Jury may, and ought to prefume every thing to have been paid, which ex equo et bano, in equity and good confcience, ought not to be paid. Such is the current of the determinations in the Court of Chancery of England ;  abd the fame principle is recognized in the cafe of Moʃes  and M‘Harlan  ; 2 Burr.  1005. for, though the Courts of Juftice cannot alter or deftroy the contract of the parties, they may interpofe to render it confromable to reafon, juftice, and confcience.

RUSH, and BRYAN, Juftices, concurred.

The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff in the fum of Ł 76.10. with fix pence cells. CHAPMAN