
    Bogle, Somerville, & Co. v. Vowles.
    [Thursday, May 10th, 1798.]
    Paper Money — Scale of Depreciation — Circumstances.— The circumstances to he enciuired iDto, under the act for scaling paper money, must he such as arise in the contract sued on, shewing that the parties at that time contracted on the idea of no . depreciation at all, or one different from the legal scale.
    Same — Same—Same.—In the case of -bonds, the circumstances, if admitted at all, must be very strong to induce a departure.
    This was a motion for a writ of supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court of Fredericksburg.
    ' The petition stated, that William Hewett in his life-time, was indebted to the petitioners for transactions on the 22d June, 1776. This debt was afterwards, to wit: On the 11th day of April, 1777, carried into a specialty, the penalty of which was 4001. and the condition was for payment of 2001. on the first day of August, 1780, with legal interest thereon, from the first day of August, 1778. That Hewett died, and his property was put into the hands of the defendant Vowles, as Sheriff of the County of Stafford, for administration and division, by the Court of the said County of Stafford; who directed the said bond to be discharged according to the scale of depreciation, upon the 11th day of April, 1777, and that the Court refused to receive proof of the said debt having originated in the year 245 1776: That *this opinion of the County Court had been affirmed by the District Court of Fredericksburg. To which judgment of affirmance, the petitioners prayed a writ of supersedeas.
    The bond was for 4001. current money of Virginia; and, was payable to Messrs. Bogle, Somerville & Co. of the City of Glasgow. The condition was for payment of 2001. like money, on the first day of August, 1780, with interest from the first day of August, 1778, according to the statement in the petition.
    There was a bill of exceptions to - the opinion of the County Court, which stated the matter mentioned in the petition, and that the plaintiffs offered to prove, that the contract for which the said bond was taken, originated on the 22d dajr of June, 1776, but that the Court rejected the testimony.
    Randolph, for the plaintiff.
    Referred the Court to Pleasants v. Bibb, 1 Wash. 8, and Hill et al. v. Southerland’s ex’r, 1 Wash. 128, in this Court; and, submitted the case upon the petition.
    
      
      Paper Money — Scale of Depreciation — Circumstances. — The principal case is cited in Dearing v. Rucker, 18 Gratt. 451.
      See also, foot-note to Smith v. Walker, 1 Gall 39 ; and the principal case cited in Meredith v. Salmon, 1 Gratt. 774 ; Dearing v. Rucker, 18 Gratt. 448.
    
   PENDLETON, President,

delivered the resolution of the Court to the following effect:

The circumstances to be enquired into, under the last clause in the act of Assembty, in order to overrule the legal scale, must be such as arise in the contract sued on, shewing the parties, at that time, contracted on the idea of no depreciation, or one different from the legal scale.

In the case of bonds, the circumstances, if admitted at all, must be ver3r strong to induce a departure. Pleasants v. Bibb, 1 Wash. 8, had a strong appearance on the bond itself of a prior contract not changed; and, this confirmed by other written testimony.

But, here the bond has a different aspect. The - interest is to commence at a future day, and the payment is to be made at another day, still more remote; and, whatever might have been the con-246 tract *in 1776, the parties may have ‘ contemplated in 1777, an existing or probable depreciation, and increased the sum accordingly.

The Courts were right in rejecting the evidence of the contract in 1776, as wholly immaterial; and, therefore, upon the merits, we deny the motion for a supersedeas.  