
    Sallee v. Yates and Wife.
    October Term, 1793.
    Legacies — When Payment in Depreciated Paper floney Good. — A legacy paid in the y ear 1778, to the guardian of the legatee in depreciated paper money, is a good discharge ot the executor, at the nominal amount, and the guardian having lent out part of the money, and received it back in depreciated paper, which he at last funded, is not liable for the loss by depreciation.
    This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery — The bill was brought by the appellees to recover a legacy of ^300, devised to the female plaintiff, by the will of Benjamin Harris her father, made in the year 1776, of which, ;£100 was to be paid in a year after the legatee should attain the age of 18 years, and the residue, so soon as the executors could raise it. The first payment was made to Sallee, the guardian of the legatee, on the 12th of September 1778, some time after she arrived to the above age, as was also the residue, on the 31st July 1779.
    The guardian lent out the _£200 on the day he received it, which was repaid to him in the year 1780 — the ^100 remained in his hands, not lent out, nor used, until the paper money was called in, when he funded the whole sum of ^300 together with his own money, at the rate of one, for a thousand. The legatee refused, (before the money was funded) to receive it from the guardian, and instituted this suit, against him, as also against the executors and residuary legatees of the testator, praying that the ,£300 may be reduced according to the scale when it was paid, and that the balance may be made good out of the residuary estate. The Court, decreed the executors to pay ^300 to the plaintiffs, after deducting therefrom, the payments, made according to the true value at the time of such payments with interest from the time the plaintiff was entitled to recover her legacy. From this decree, the defendants appealed.
    
      
      The principal case is reported in Wythe 163, and cited in Jennings v. Jennings, 22 Gratt. 320. See McCall v. Peachy, 3Munf. 288: Taliaferro v. Minor, 2 Call 190, and note,.
      
    
   The PRESIDENT

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is certainly a very hard case, but we think there is no ground for relief. The legislature in the year 1781, contemplating, no doubt, all those cases of hardship, and at the same time, the infinite mischief and confusion which would be introduced, *by a re-settlement of paper money claims, passed a law, declaring “that all actual payments made by any person or persons, of any sum, or sums of the paper currency, there mentioned, at any time, or times, either to the full amount, or in part payment of any debt, contract, or obligation, whatsoever, the party paying the same, shall have full credit, for the nominal amount of such payments, which are not to be reduced.” It is remarkable, that to the words debts and contracts, are added, or obligations whatsoever, which comprehend legacies. Courts of Equity, are as much bound by this legislative declaration, as courts of law. The executor therefore, by the payments made to the guardian, was by this law totally discharged, and since the guardian was guilty of no fault, either in receiving, or in the application of the money, he ought not to be subject to the loss, by further depreciation, subsequent to the payment by the executors. The bill must be dismissed as to the executors and residuary legatees, and the cause remanded to the High Court of Chancery, as to the guardian, for an account to be taken of the money received by him, according to the principles of this decree.  