Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 U.S. 237

Miller v. Leonard

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 1, 1795

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1795

THIS was an action of debt on a bond for £250, dated the 7th of May 1776. On the 16th of September 1778, a payment had been made of £150, in Continental money ; and the question now brought before the Court was, whether this payment should be reduced and liquidated, according to the specie value of Continental money, at the time of paying it ? For the plaintiff, it was contended, that the act of Assembly (1 Vol. Dall.

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1795

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1887

6 state decisions

301795180018101820183018401850186018701880decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1THIS was an action of debt on a bond for £250, dated the 7th of May 1776. On the 16th of September 1778, a payment had been made of £150, in Continental money ; and the question now brought before the Court was, whether this payment should be reduced and liquidated, according to the specie value of Continental money, at the time of paying it ?

¶2For the plaintiff, it was contended, that the act of Assembly (1 Vol. Dall. Edit. p. 880.) does not extend to any contracts, but such as were made between the 1st of January 1777, and the 1st of March 1781 ; and that, consequently, the payment in the present instance was not affected by the provision in the 4th sect, that “ the Auditors shall not have power or authority, in cases where partial payments have been made in money then current, to reduce such payment.”

¶3Read and Biddle for the plaintiff,

¶4Clymer and Thomas for the defendant.*

¶6But the Court thought it unnecessary to hear the defendant’s counsel, conceiving it to be clear and settled, that the payment in the present case, ought not to be reduced by the scale of depreciation.

/2/us/237 · .json · Public domain