
    WESTMORELAND COUNTY.
    March Term, 1793.
    Arthur St. Clair v. Thomas Galbraith's Administrators.
    SEVERAL actions of debt on bonds, which had been given in payment of lands sold, having been referred to auditors, and report made ; the defendant’s counsel moved to set this report aside ; because the sums became due in the time of paper currency, and the auditors had not reduced them by the scale ; but found the sums mentioned in the bonds.
    Brackenridge, for the defendants.
    The authority given by the law to the auditors, to determine by equity, to what cases the scale applies not, ought to be liberally construed, but not so extended, as to destroy the law. I know, but two cases, to which the scale applies not.
    1. Where the ground of action is evidence of a contract before the period of depreciation, though itself within it ; as a bond given after, on a contract before the depreciation.
    
      See Wharton v. Morris. Dall. 125.
    
    
      Lee v. Biddis Dall. 175.
    
    2. Where it is the meaning of the parties, that the sum expressed shall not be paid in a depreciated currency. But to extend this exception, as the auditors have done here, and not to apply the scale, because the depreciation was not known here, when it took place in Philadelphia, will defeat the law, as much as if there never had been a scale. Instead of one fixed scale for the whole state, it will vary in infinite degrees, in every part of the state, and occasion all the inconveniences, which the law intended to prevent.
    
      Ross and Woods, for the plaintiff.
    It was the intention of the law, to give to auditors a different authority from that of courts and juries ; and constitute them chancellors with full authority to examine the justice of the case, and decide according to all its circumstances : the supposed value of the money, at the place of the contract, the value of the property sold in the estimation of the parties contracting, and the partial payments in depreciated currency, though not reducible, are all taken into consideration, to enable the auditors to ascertain what sum would really correspond to the intention of the parties expressed in the contract. This has been the uniform practice of courts and auditors. In the case of Lee v. Biddis, in the Supreme court, on a bond given on a previous contract made within the period of depreciation, the auditors did not confine themselves to the value of the money even at the time of the contrail, but gave hard money. Exceptions were filed and argued, as here ; but the court confirmed the report. In the present case, the land fold was worth 2000l. hard money, and was sold for 2000l. when depreciation was unknown here. Of that sum, 1400l. was paid, when the money was at 20 for 1. And, when the whole sum in this report shall be paid, not more than half of the price in the view of both parties, at the time of the contract, will be paid. Courts have always rejected nice subtleties, to attain substantial justice. They have permitted a feme coverte to be sued as sole. When a verdict against law, but founded in justice, as a verdict against the plea of the statute of limitations, has been obtained, they have refused to set it aside. When one has been convicted on an indictment, he has been forced under the influence of the sentence to be passed, to do justice to the party injured. If you seek equity, you must first do equity. Reports of auditors or arbitrators, judges chosen by the parties, are peculiarly favoured. The court will not take from us the advantage we have got, by this report, when taking this would deprive us of justice.
    
      
       This case was a manuscript statement certified by Mr. Burd, prothonotary of the Supreme court. There was also a letter from Mr. Lewis, one of the counsel, stating it.
    
   President.

The case in the Supreme court is decisive of this. There must be judgment on the report.  