
    Strode v. Head.
    
    October Term, 1795.
    Debt on Bond — Penalty—Value of Currency — How As= certained. — Debt upon a bond in the penalty of 18001. Pennsylvania currency, of the valae of 14401. Virginia currency. The defendant having confessed judgment, it was entered for 18001. Pennsylvania currency, of the value of 14401. current money of Virginia, to be discharged by the payment of 7201. current money of Virginia, with interest, &c. The confession of judgment fixed the value of the money, and furnished the Clerk with a standard for ascertaining the value of the sum mentioned in the condition.
    The appellee brought an action of debt in the District Court of Eredericksburgh, on a bond (with a condition)' payable in Pennsylvania currency. The declaration was for the penalty, viz. £1800 Pennsylvania currency, of the value of ¿1440 Virginia currency. After oyer, the defendant pleaded payment. He afterwards withdrew his plea and confessed judgment generally. The judgment was entered up for ¿1800 Pennsylvania currency, of the value of ¿1440 current money of Virginia, to be discharged by the payment of £720 current money of Virginia, with interest and costs.
    Prom this judgjnent, the defendant appealed.
    Campbell for the appellant.
    Though it is certain, that if ¿1800 Pennsylvania currency is equal to ¿1440 Virginia currency, that the half of the former, must be equal to half the sum of the latter, yet as the value affixed by the plaintiff is merely arbitrary, a general confession will not warrant a judgment for the value fixed by the party himself. What the value of foreign money is, is always a fact to be ascertained by a jury, and not by the calculation of the clerk.
    Dee for the appellee.
    The declaration having stated the value of the foreign money, the confession of judgment generally, is an acknowledgment that the value is truly stated, and renders the aid of a jury altogether unnecessary. The sum acknowledged to be due is in truth the penalty, and the permission to discharge it with a smaller sum, is an indulgence to the obligor. To do this, the condition, with the standard thus agreed upon by both the parties was properly resorted to ;■ and as the sum in the condition, is thb half of that in the penalty, and the parties have agreed upon the value of the penalty. in Virginia currency, half that value must be in the sum to which the appellee is justly entitled. But if the appellant is unwilling to avail himself "*of the benefit of the condition, I am willing to put it out of view, and to take a judgment for the very sum confessed by the. defendant which is ¿1440. But I have always supposed that it was neither usual nor proper for the party to assign for error, that which is for his advantage.
    
      
      The principal case is cited in Holliday v. Myers, 11 W. Va. 299.
    
   ROANE, J.

If a verdict had been given in this case, it would have been necessary for the jury to have found the value of the Pennsylvania currency, since this is a fact proper for their enquiry. But the appellant by confessing a judgment, rendered the interference of a jury unnecessary, since he acknowledged that he owed the appellee ¿1800 Pennsylvania currency, of the value of ¿1440 Virginia currency. Having thus furnished a standard, the sum by which the penalty was to be discharged was easily found. I think there is no error.

The other judges concurred in opinion.

Judgment affirmed.  