BOND v. HAAS' EXRS, 2 U.S. 133 (1791)

U.S. Supreme Court

BOND v. HAAS' EXRS, 2 U.S. 133 (1791)

2 U.S. 133 (Dall.)

Bond
v.
Haas's Executors

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

September Term, 1791

This was a Scire Facias on a mortgage, dated 15th August 1777, for the payment of L 250. at four per cent, current

Page 2 U.S. 133, 134

money of Pennsylvania, in one year. At the time the mortgage was executed continental money was depreciated, and at three for one. The plaintiff insisted that the whole sum should be paid in specie, and offered to prove that Adam Haas, in his life time, informed a Scrivener, that the money he had received was as good to him as gold and silver; that it was so, in effect, to the plaintiff; that he was sensible that he ought to pay her specie, and desired the Scrivener to draw a writing to secure it; and that Haas died soon after, before he had an opportunity of executing any instrument to secure it to the plaintiff. The defendant opposed the admission of this evidence: And

By the Court: This would be, in effect, altering the contract, and increasing the value of the money, in direct opposition to the act of Assembly. It is settled in the case of Lee and Biddis* that such evidence shall not be received. The evidence stated, is not to explain the contract, but to prove a new and a different one: And if such an offer as is mentioned created any legal obligation, a different suit must be brought to enforce it. The witness, therefore, must be rejected.

The plaintiff thereupon suffered a nonsuit.

Footnotes

[Footnote *] 1 Dall. 135. But fee, likewise, Dall. 267. Hollingsworth versus Ogle.

 


U.S. Supreme Court

BOND v. HAAS' EXRS, 2 U.S. 133 (1791)

 2 U.S. 133 (Dall.)

Bond
v.
Haas's Executors

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

September Term, 1791

This was a Scire Facias on a mortgage, dated 15th August 1777, for the payment of L 250. at four per cent, current

Page 2 U.S. 133, 134

money of Pennsylvania, in one year. At the time the mortgage was executed continental money was depreciated, and at three for one. The plaintiff insisted that the whole sum should be paid in specie, and offered to prove that Adam Haas, in his life time, informed a Scrivener, that the money he had received was as good to him as gold and silver; that it was so, in effect, to the plaintiff; that he was sensible that he ought to pay her specie, and desired the Scrivener to draw a writing to secure it; and that Haas died soon after, before he had an opportunity of executing any instrument to secure it to the plaintiff. The defendant opposed the admission of this evidence: And

By the Court: This would be, in effect, altering the contract, and increasing the value of the money, in direct opposition to the act of Assembly. It is settled in the case of Lee and Biddis* that such evidence shall not be received. The evidence stated, is not to explain the contract, but to prove a new and a different one: And if such an offer as is mentioned created any legal obligation, a different suit must be brought to enforce it. The witness, therefore, must be rejected.

The plaintiff thereupon suffered a nonsuit.

Footnotes

[Footnote *] 1 Dall. 135. But fee, likewise, Dall. 267. Hollingsworth versus Ogle.

Disclaimer: 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.