
    
      Singleton vs. Ogden, Adm’r of Caswell
    
    Street Newbern district.
    
    A is inedebt to Bup-^1777 »*ed cur. are** ^TfuseTto ,acoeP‘ the depreciated money, but maq consider! havfn^offer. e<1an‘10t]’ay* bonds being a¿?2tno hereafter chta-fetij1UQ' bonds are l2pay! "meut de-' tiiiT state-enforce nils agreement.
    
      On the iOth day of May, 1774, Spiers Singleton for him-?elf and Benjamin Caswell, his partner in trade, gave a bond to Samuel Caswell, then of Newbern in N. Carolina, for the penalty of Li.080, proclamation money, conditioned for the payment of Z540 like money, ontheiOthday of March ensuing ; and on or about the 23d day of Novem-her, 1774, for- himself, another bond for the penal sum of 1,2796, proclamation money, conditioned for the payment X1397 13 like money, on the 23d November in the year following — Several considerable payments were made towards the discharge of the said bonds, but a balance still remained unpaid, and before the day of payment of the last mentioned bond, to wit: about August, 1773, the said Samuel Caswell voluntarily left the state, conveying the said bonds with him, and did not return until the month of December, 1777, but heleit his family and effects still re-maiming at Newbern aforesaid. Or. the return of Caswell, Singleton waited on him and offered to pay him the balance of principal and interest due upon the saidbonds, and was proceeding to count the money to Caswell, who desired' Singleton not to proceed, as he had not the bonds with him, and at the same time promised and assured Singleton that although he could not receive the money (it being depreciated paper money), nor give up the bonds, yet in consideration that Singleton had offered to pay the money and tfoe bonds were absent, no interest should be charged there* on f,.om (¡Ia+ day, until they should be produced and the payment demanded within the State. Caswell in a short time again departed taking his family arid effects from the state and returned no more, hut died in New*York in 1781: nor were the bonds ever afterwards produced within this state nor the payment of them demanded until about the month of May ±798. Singleton was afterwards required to pay and did pay the balance of the principal and interest due upon the said bonds at the time of offering to pay the same to Caswell as aforesaid, to the commissioners of confiscated property in pursuance of the acts of the Gene» ral Assembly, commonly called the confiscation acts.
    In 1798, administration de bonis non, on Caswell’s estate, was granted by the County Court of Craven to Robert Ogden, and shortly afterwards Singleton waited on Ogden and offered to pay the balance of principal and interest due upon the bonds aforesaid at the time of offering to pay the same to Caswell as aforesaid : but Ogden refused to settle unless interest was paid upon the bonds for the whole time without any deduction $ and. instituted suits upon said bonds and recovered judgments. Singleton filed his bill in Equity praying that an injunction might be granted as to the interest which had accrued upon the bonds from the time he offered to make payment to Caswell up to the time that lie offered to make payment to Ogden as aforesaid. Ogden in his answer insisted that Caswell was a British subject; that after the declaration of American Independence in 1776, Caswell had retired from North* Carolina, went to New-York where he continued within the lines and garrisons of His Britannic Majesty until big death, having tained his allegiance but taken no part in the war: the debts due upon the bonds aforesaid were within the meaning and provision of the fourth article of the treaty of peace concluded between His Britannic Majesty and the United States; diiecting that creditors on either side should meet with no legal impediments to the recovery of full value in lawful money of all bona fide debtg theretofore contracted : that Caswell was under no legal or equitable obligation to accept depreciated paper money in payment of the bonds aforesaid, and that his promise or agreement that no further interest should be charged, was totally without consideration and ought not to be enforced. This case was transferred to this court for the opinion of the Judges upon the question, whether complainant was entitled to the relief prayed for in his bill.
   By the Court

The defendants intestate in this case promised not to demand interest for the time the depreciated currency was offered to him in payment: and the circumstance that ho thereby avoided receiving what the law and Ihe necessity of the times then made a legal tender, and which must unavoidably have sunk to nothing in his hands, affords such a consideration to support his promise as to entire the complainant to the aid of a Court of Equity to enforce a compliance with it. 1 he injunction must therefore fee made perpetual as prayed for by complainant.  