
    Taliaferro v. Minor.
    [October Term, 1799.]
    Paper Money — Administrator — Receipts and Payments by. — Receipts and.paymentsby an administrator ought not to be reduced to specie by the legal scale of depreciation; but should be stated In paper money.
    Same — Act of Assembly. — The act of Assembly declares that all actual payments made in paper money in discharge of debts or contracts should stand at their nominal amount without being scaled; nor are such payments within the prqviso empowering the courts to vary the scale upon ' equitable circumstances.
    This was an appeal from á decree of the High Court of Chancery, where William Minor and Mildred his wife, and Lawrence Washington executor and Griffin Stith and Frances his wife, executrix of Thornton Washington deceased, brought a bill stating, that John Thornton died intestate in 1777, and that his personal estate devolved on his daughters Mary, the wife of Wood-ford, Betty the wife of Taliaferro,, on Thornton Washington his grandson, and his granddaughter Mildred the plaintiff. That Taliaferro and Woodford took administration on the estate; and that the plaintiffs William and Mildred have intermarried.
    The bill therefore prays an account and distribution of the personal estate, and for general relief.
    The answer of Taliaferro states, ' that many of the debts dué the decedent were paid in paper monej7. That all the personal estate was sold by the administrators, amounting, with a crop, to ¿13848. 4. 3M- That ¿4739. 13. 4. came to the hands of the defendant; who received also sundry debts of the intestate to the amount of ¿400.' That, out of the monies received for the sales of the estate and on other accounts, several debts due from the intestate have been paid. That in July 1779 there was paid to John Lewis father of the plaintiff Mildred the sum of ¿4111. 9. 7., and to Thornton Washington, by a written order' from his father, the sum of ¿4200. 18. 0. ; which were the amount of their shares after the proper deductions were made; and for these sums he took receipts from the said John Lewis and Thornton Washington. That the said Thornton Washington and the said John Lewis father of the plaintiff Mildred were present at the sales of the personal estate, and purchased several articles respectively. That the defendant has been sued for a considerable debt claimed of the said John Thornton ; which suit is yet' depending. That after Woodford went into the army, the administration was conducted by the defendant.
    The answer of Woodford’s executrix, speaks of the sales of the estate, and that, after Woodford went into the army, the administration was conducted by Talia-ferro.
    The Court of Chancery referred the accounts to a commissioner; who credited the estate with the money for the sales of the personal estate, upon the days when the sales respectively took place; which were on the 19th of May 1778, the 1st of December 1778, and the 2d of January 1779. He also credited the estate, on the 5th of June 1779, with four loan office certificates paid to John Lewis, for his daughter Mildred the plaintiff, viz. One of 300 dollars, dated 5th of March 1777, with interest to the 5th of June aforesaid; *when it was paid to Lewis, as above mentioned; a second of 1800 dollars, dated 17th of March 1778, with interest as above; a third of 2333% dollars, dated 1st of March 1778, with interest as above; and a fourth of 1500 dollars, dated 6th of November 1778, with interest as above. He also credited the estate, at the same time, with %1347. 12. continental certificates for emissions of April and May paper money; to which no date being affixed, the date of payment to Lewis was assumed. He also on the 5th of July 1779, credits the estate with a loan office certificate of 4333% dollars dated 5th of December 1777, with interest to the said 5th of July; when it was paid to Thornton Washington. He likewise credits the estate with monies collected. After which he debits the estate with sundry disbursements; but leaving due from John Taliaferro, as administrator of John Thornton deceased, a balance of %158. 9. 2. to the estate of Thornton Washington ; and to £361. 18. 7%. to the estate of Woodford the other administrator.
    In this report the commissioner, being uncertain whether the monies paid Thornton Washington by William Woodford were included in any of the payments made by John Taliaferro, considered the separate receipts as separate and distinct payments. He added, that as the payments of the 5th of July 1779 were included in one receipt, without specifying the particulars, except the certificate, the purchases at the sales with the certificate and as much paper money as made up the %3800. were taken together for Thornton Washingtons share, and that as the sales were all made for ready money, and few debts to pay, two and a half per cent commission, only, were allowed the defendant.
    The defendant John Taliaferro excepted to the report, for the following reasons, amongst others. 1. That the certificates for the emissions of paper money in April and May 1778, being for paper *money received at the sales of the estate and funded ought to be considered as part of the sales; a nd therefore as the whole amount of the sales was credited, the said certificates ought not to be made a separate charge again ; for by that means the defendant was twice charged with the same thing. But if the certificates had been a proper charge the depreciation ought to be calculated from the time the certificates were received by him, and not from the time they were paid to Lewis. 2. That the commissioner in charging the disbursements and payments by the defendant, had made him liable for the depreciation, between the dates of the receipts and those of the payments; whereas if the scale was to be applied at all the defendant ought not to be answerable for the loss arising from the intervening depreciation: But that according to the act of Assembly all payments in paper money ought tO' stand at their nominal amount. 3. That 2% per cent was not a sufficient commission for his administration on the estate.
    On these exceptions the commissioner remarked that the certificate for the April and May money could not be included in the sales already made, because it is credited by the defendant over and above • the sales of the estate. So that the only question is whether the value is rightly ascertained? To which there could be no objection; because the defendant is not made answerable for more, on that ground, than he has credit for in the accounts of Minor and Washington. In which the debits of the certificates, with interest in their accounts, correspond with the credit to the estate in the account current; upon which statement of the certificates, he observed the defendants exception vanished ; because he paid the same value that he received. That as to the exception concerning the disbursements, and payments made by the defendant he thought himself warranted tinder the decretal order of the court to do the parties material and complete justice as far as their respective cases would admit; and that the act of Assembly did not prevent a fair adjustment, *of the accounts of executors, administrators, guardians, or other trustees. That the act directs, “that debts and contracts, are to be reduced to the true value in specie at the days or times the same were incurred or entered into. A, buys a horse of B, for two hundred pounds in January 1778 payable January 1779, but he fails to pay for him until January 1782, when pape1- money ceased to be a circulating medium: When the contract was entered into, the scale was four for one, and therefore A must owe to B, %50. with £7. 10 for three years interest thereon making the sum of ¿57. 10. whereas if the term incurred is applied to the debt at the day of payment, when the scale was eight for one, he will only have to pay half that sum. That the last is not the sense, in which the Legislature used the term incurred, appears clearly from the proviso in the second section of the act; where it is provided, that actual payments made in the then current paper currency should not be scaled. The injustice done to the debtor, by scaling the debtor contract at the time it was incurred or entered into, and not at the date of payment, is here transferred to the creditor, with accumulated force. And altho’ the debtor under the terms of the act in the case propounded, would pay double, yet, if he paid the creditor with interest otj the last day of December 1781, to wit, two hundred and thirty pounds reduced by the scale of one thousand for one making four shillings and seven pence, he would pay him with about the two hundred and fiftieth part of his debt. The last clause of the act proves, that the Assembly foresaw that gross injustice would be done by a rigid adherence to the scale, or to the payments made by debtors and therefore a discretionary power was vested in the courts. Under this opinion your commissioner has, in every instance referred to him by the Court, endeavored to do justice to both debtors and creditors. In some cases where the credits to an estate arose from sales on credit, *and the collections of debts due to the testator or intestate, which are not always punctually paid, he hath reduced the paper money credits by a medium scale, and used the same rule for disbursements. In others where the sales were made for ready money and no debts to collect, and few or no demands tb satisfy but the claims of dis-tributees, he hath applied the scale according to the dates. This last rule was applied to the case under consideration, it appearing to your commissioner that the administrator had no debts of any consequence to pay, which could retard the distribution.”
    “That the whole of the disbursements were of such a nature as made them necessarily known to the defendant, and it was therefore his duty to have paid them directly, as he had money on hand for that purpose.”
    The Court of Chancery overruled the exceptions, and decreed payment of the ¿£158. 9. 2. to the estate of Washington, and of the ^361. 18. *1%.. to Woodford, with interest on each sum from the 5th day of July 1779.
    From which decree Taliaferro appealed to this court.
    Randolph for the appellant.
    Sallee v. Yates and Granberry v. Granberry contain the general doctrines of the court upon paper money, which ought to influence this case; and prove that the appellant ought only to be charged according to the scale value, as that was the real value of the subject in his hands. For there was no default in him, and he was ready to pay the shares of the other distributees when demanded.
    Marshall,' contra.
    Relied on the reasoning of the commissioner upon the subject; and added that *as the money was not retained for payment of debts, that the appellants might have paid it over to the guardians of the infants at an earlier period.
    Randolph, in reply.
    It does not appear that the guardians ever demanded it.
    Cur. adv. vult.
    
      
      Paper Honey -Guardian — Receipts and Payments by-—See tbe principal case cited in Hooper v. Royster, 1 Munf. 129, and point 10 of syllabus to M’Call v. Peachy, 3 Munf. 289.
      Chancery Practice — Decree between Co-defendants.— See foot-notes to Mundy v. Vawter, 3 Gratt. 518; Allen v. Morgan, 8 Gratt. 60; Blair v. Thompson, 11 Gratt. 422. The principal case is cited in Blair v. Thompson, 11 Gratt. 447.
    
    
      
      1 Wash. 226.
    
    
      
      1 Wash. 246.
    
   Per. Cur.

“The court is of opinion that the receipts and payments of the administrator to the end of the year 1779 ought not to have been reduced to specie, by the legal scale of depreciation, but to have been stated in paper, in which the receipts and payments were. The reasoning of the master commissioner, on the subject, tends to illustrate some of the evil effects of paper; but it belonged to the Legislature, and not to the Courts of Justice, to fix the mode of winding up that unhappy affair, so as to subject individuals, on the whole, to the least of unavoidable evils. Which was done by the act of 1781: Amongst other regulations, it is declared that all actual payments, made in paper in discharge of debts or contracts, should stand at their nominal amount and not be scaled: Nor is the case of such payments within the proviso empowering the courts to vary the scale upon equitable circumstances. Perhaps the conduct of this administrator is less exceptionable, than almost any which hath been brought before a court; since, in the next year after the intestates death, he paid the two complaining distributees all, nearly all, or probably over, their proportions of'the estate to that period. The account ought to be stated in paper to the time of the last payment to them, and the balance, either way, reduced by the scale of that month, carried to the account of subsequent specie articles, and interest allowed against the debtor from time to time thereafter. The court is further of opinion the *administrator ought to be allowed five per cent commissions on the amount of the sales and debts received by himself (but not on the loan office certificates or debts collected by Day, who probably retained a commission;) that allowance not being too great for selling and receiving, paying and accounting for the money, and risqueing the receipt of counterfeit paper; an instance of which appears to have happened to his loss. Amongst the loan certificates is a continental one for one thousand three hundred and forty seven pounds twelve shillings emissions of April and May-money 1778, which the administrator is charged with, because it is part of four thousand seven hundred and thirty nine pounds, thirteen shillings and four pence credited in his account for the certificates, besides a credit for the amount of the whole sales: This he states in his exceptions to have been a mistake as to the certificates in question; which were taken for paper money received for the sales and funded by him; and so a double charge. Which, tho’ not proved, is very probable; since the certificates, being after the intestates death, must have been for paper found in the house or received by- the administrator for sales or debts: Of the former eighty-pounds six shillings and six pence is accounted for, which it is presumed was all. It is remarkable that a like mistake was made by the administrator in the case of Armistead’s certificates which was corrected by the commissioner. This article, therefore, of one thousand three hundred and forty seven pounds twelve shillings ought to be open for enquiry and adjustment on taking the new account. The decree in favour of the representatives of William Woodford the co-administrator seems improper, since no contest, between them and the appellee, appears in the record, nor any account of their separate transactions, except in the state of the accounts by the commissioner; unless that was done by consent, *which would justify it. And that the decree aforesaid is erroneous. Therefore it is decreed and ordered that the same be reversed and annulled; and that the appellees pay to the appellant his costs by him expended in the prosecution of his appeal aforesaid here; and the cause is remanded to the said High Court of Chancery, for that court to have the account, between the parties, reformed; and a decree entered, according to the principles of this decree.”  