Ward v. Ridgwin, 1 N.C. 84, 1 Mart. 84 (1793)

1793 · United States Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina

1 N.C. 84, 1 Mart. 84

Ward vs. Ridgwin.

Pasch. 1 Car.

DEBT was brought for a certain sum of Hamburgh money, of the value of &c. English money, and it was in detinet, pro eo quod defendens cognovit se teneri to the plaintiff in the parish de St. Mariæ de arcubus, in cheap. On oyer it appeared that the deed was dated at Hamburgh. Thereupon the plaintiff demurred. 1. For money it ought to be in debet et detinet and he cited a judgment, 3 Jac. in Harle and Draper's case, which was in debet and detinet for £. 99 English, and he declared for £. 99 Flemish, averring that they were the same, and he recovered. 38 H. 6.13. 9 E. 4. 5.

But it was answered and resolved by the court, that it is well enough in detinet. 46 E. 3. 15. One does not declare ad valenciam, when it is for English money; but here it is well enough: for the value of one is known, but not of the other.

Doderidge, J.

It might be in debet et detinet; but the practice is in detinet alone; it is not like bullion. I remember well the case in T. 3 Jac.

Jones, J.

If the action be for French money, current by proclamation, then it lies clearly in aebet et detinet: and if a man is bound to pay £. 100 in French crowns, he may tender the whole in English money, and e converso.

Doderidge, J.

Usage has made the other action a good one. 34 H. 6. 12. 9 E. 4. 49. If the suit be brought for English money, it shall be in the debet et detinet, but for foreign money, it shall be in the detinet. 6. E. 3. F. account 103. In such a case a suit may be against a man either as bailiff or receiver, and for any money not current by proclamation, the suit shall be in detinet.

Crew, C. J.

In such a case the judgment shall be conditional, 38 El. Rep. Shaw and Payne. Debt was brought in * detinet for foreign money, and because the judgment was not conditional, it was reversed.

The second point is, that the action is, laid in London, and the obligation appears to be dated at Hamburgh, beyond the seas. But Jermyn took a distinction, because the date of the deed may be intended not to be in a town, but in some place in London. It would be otherwise if it appeared to be in partibus transmarinis; then the action would not lie. Jones 69. Bendl, 149. 2 Keble. 463. Antea, p. 4, 77,