
    Lee v. Biddis.
    
      Pa/rol evidence.
    
    Effect of the words “current lawful money.”
    Parol evidence to show what kind of money was meant, ruled to be inadmissible.
    On the trial of this cause, Lewis, for the plaintiff,
    offered evidence to prove what was the money meant to be jiaid by the contract entered into between the plaintiff and defendant, under the words cwrent lawful money; and cited Morris v. Wharton (ante, p. 125).
    
      Sergeant, objected to the evidence,
    and cited 1 Atk. 447; 2 State Laws 494. Davies 48, 72.
   By the Court.

Current lawful money, by the positive words of the act of assembly, means such money as is current at the time of entering into the contract; and, perhaps, the evidence offered would not so much contradict the contract itself, as that act of assembly : it would be to substantiate an agreement in direct opposition to the law. The case in Davies, if wo could be bound by it at all (which we do not think we can, first, because it is not a judicial determination ; and, secondly, because it is before judges in Ireland), would be in favor of the plaintiff, if it had not been for this act of assembly. But, indeed, if this evidence were admitted, it would open a door to such a scene of litigation, that, independent of the act, the argument ab inconvenienti never applied in greater force.

The evidence was accordingly overruled, and the plaintiff voluntarily suffered a nonsuit. 
      
      
         See the note to Morris v. Wharton, ante, p. 125.
     
      
       The same point was determined in Bond v. Haas’s Ex’rs, 2 Hall. 133. But in McMinn v. Owen, 2 Id. 173, which was an action on an agreement executed in 1779, for the payment of 5007. by instalments, the particular kind of money not being specified, it was held, that parol evidence was admissible, to show that the instalments were to be paid in whatever money was current at the time they became due.
     