
    The Executors of Fowl against Todd.
    The deprecia-Smth-Caro-not affect con-other mCoun-n tnes, unless there is a special agree-anent to run the risk of Sation.d0pre
    ground S for haís*for'páy’ ment. xntcrest snau he allowed on-of demanding the^dravrer did not know ciation.
    ASSUMPSIT on two protested bills of exchange, draw». by the defendant at the island of Bermuda, on his brother Richard Todd,, in South-Carolina; one dated in October, for 350/. currency, and the other in October, 1779, for 2,400/. currency, J
    
    The value of South-Carolina currency in Bermuda, was well known to be seven for one sterling; but when the bills were sent on for payment, the money had greatly depreciate<^ *n Carolina, so that the holder would not present them ^or Paymeni 5 and in fact, never did, as the money eventually perished. This action was, therefore, brought against the drawee for the amount of these bills and interest. On the trial of the cause before a special jury, several grounds of defence were taken by the defendant, pjrst that the defendant was not liable, as the bills had never been tendered for acceptance or payment, and that the depreciation then prevailing, was not a sufficient ground to excuse the holder for keeping back the bills. Secondly, that if the defendant was liable, he was only liable for the value in depreciated money at the time. And thirdly, that if interest was to be allowed, it should only be given on the value of such depreciated money, from the time of demand of payment.
    On hearing of the arguments,
   Rutledge, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court as follows: First, that the great depreciation of money in Carolina at that time, having been reduced down to thirty for one, -well excused the holder from presenting it for pay ment at that depreciated rate, especially as it was a tender in all cases whatever.

Secondly. As the contract was made in Bermuda, with a view to the value of South-Carolina money as it stood before the depreciation, at seven for one, it ought, in good faith and conscience, to be paid at that rate. That the depreciation law did not extend to contracts made out of the state, unless a special agreement to the contrary.

Thirdly. With respect to the interest: if the drawer kneiv of the depreciation at the time he drew the bills, and concealed the circumstance, it was a species of fraud, and he ought to be chargeable with interest from the time of drawing the bills. But if not, (of which the jury was to judge,) then he is only liable for interest from the time of demanding payment.

Jury found the bills at seven for one, with interest from the time of demanding payment.

Chief Justice, Burke, and Bay, present.  