Brown v. Barry
3 U.S. 365

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Brown v. Barry, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 365 365 (1797)

Brown v. Barry

3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 365


The suspension of a statute for a limited time is not a repeal of it.

The intention of the legislature when discovered must prevail, any rule of construction declared by previous acts to the contrary notwithstanding.

In an action on a bill of exchange, which had not been protested for nonpayment, it is not necessary to aver in the declaration that the bill had been protested for nonacceptance.

As to bills of exchange drawn in the United States payable in Europe, the custom of merchants in this country does not ordinarily require, to recover on a protest for nonpayment, that a protest for nonacceptance shall be produced, though the bills were not accepted.

Where the action is for foreign money, and its value is not averred, a verdict cures the defect.

The reason that debet for foreign money is ill is the uncertainty of its value, and this is cured by a verdict.

An action of debt had been instituted in the circuit court by James Barry, a citizen of Maryland, against James Brown, a citizen of Virginia, in which the declaration sets forth that the plaintiff, by his attorney,

"complains of James Brown, etc. of a plea that he render to him the sum of

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.