
    Warren Hall against David Williams.
    
      Columbia,
    
    1802.
    In an action of where plaintiff recovers less than C20L he shall recover no more than the costs on a summary process unless* the debt be reduced by discounts, in which cáse if the demand was originally above 20Z. he shall have full costs.
    Alt payments made in cotton or other produce" should be credited at the current price in the district, and the value thereof entered on the same day or carried out in plaintiff’s books.
    CASE from Union district. Upon a motion to have -the costs of an action tried by a jury reduced to the same costs as on a summary process.
    1'he plaintiff in this case, had a verdict for a sum under 20i. sterling, within the summary jurisdiction of this court, and, from his own books, the demand was plainly within the summary jurisdiction after all just credits were given.
    Mr. Natt, defendant’s counsel,
    moved, that the plaintiif should only have the same costs taxed him as are allowed on a summary process, in lieu of those usually taxed on an issue, tried in the court of common pleas by a jury of the country, and for that purpose quoted 3 Will. 48. as in point.
    This was opposed by Mr. Gist, for the plaintiff,
    on the ground that the plaintiff had credited the defendant for cotton and other articles in his books, but had not carried out the prices in money, so as to reduce his demand below 20/. sterling; that these articles were of uncertain value, which depended upon the state of the markets* and until the sales' were made of them and an account received of the nett proceeds, the sums could not be carried out in the books which were produced, nor the exact balance struck.
    To this it was replied, by Mr. ffott, that most of the payments in the country, were made to store-keepers and others in the public line, in corn, cotton, and other valuable staple commodities of the country, in the course of the year as the crops came round ; and to suffer shop-keepers and others to recover the amount of their demands for goods, without deducting the payments made in the produce of the soil, would be an actual fraud, practised on the agricultural part of the community.
    That it was the duty of every store-keeper, or other public dealer or trader, to give credit at the usual market prices in the country for all articles received in payment from the planters, on the day of delivery, and not to leave the value of these articles open for the purpose of giving what credits they pleased at a future day, when the prices might be considerably depressed in the market. That according to this rule, if the credits had been given in this case at the current prices in the country, the plaintiff’s demand would have been reduced to 10/. the sum given by the jury, which is only one half of the sum which might be recovered in the -summary jurisdiction of this court.
   JBy the court,

unanimously. All credits or payments, made in the produce of the soil of the country, should b© credited at the current value thereof on the day of delivery* and the value not be left open to be filled up at a future day, unless there be some contract to the contrary ; otherwise, it would be opening a door for fraudulent practices on the part of store-keepers and country traders, which it is the duty of this court to prevent as much as possible.

That with regard to costs, it has often been determined in our courts, that where the plaintiff’s demand was originally above 20/. but had been reduced by payments of any’ kind to a less sum, he should only receive the costs of a summary process. But where there are mutual subsisting debts or demands between the parties, he shall have his full costs though the demand be reduced below 20/. sterling ; because, the plaintiff when he brings his suit, cannot tell whether the defendant will set off his demand or not, as he may have his cross action* so that in such case he would lose all that part of his demand which exceeded the 20/. sterling ; and so with respect to assigned notes or‘demands negotiated over to a defendant, of which a plaintiff might be ignorant at the time of bringing his action or suit. But* it is otherwise, in cases of payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff himself; they are not debts due and owing, but discharges pro tanto, and as it appears in the present case that the cotton and other articles were delivered in part payment of defendant’s debt, their value ought to have been credited pro tanto on the days of deliver)7. The case cited from 3 Will. 48. is good law and in point on this subject, as also Strange, 1191.

Let the rule be made absolute for taxing for the plaintiff the amount of the costs on a summary process only, and let the defendant have his costs, all but what he would have been compelled to pay in defending himself against a summary process, to be deducted out of the amount of the verdict.

Present, Grimke, Waties, Johnson, Trezevant and Brevard.  