Dunlop v. Funk

Harrison, Ch. J. and Hanson, J. (Goldsborough, J. dissent.) said, that tender might be given in evidence on non assumpsit under the act, and the jury were directed, “ that if the money tendered was the emission of 1777, and amounted to one fourth of the debt- demanded, it was a discharge pro 'tanto." (a) They also said, that whatever in conscience or equity will bar the plaintiff’s claim may be given in evidence on non assumpsit, and need not be pleaded. Burr. 1553.

Bl. Rep. 988. A verdict was found for plaintiff, and damages 325l. 10s. 2d. current money. The verdict was taken subject to the opinion of the court, on the¿following/)ozwí saved, to wit: It is agreed that the defendant passed the note and as» ³²⁰ sumption in the declaration mentioned, in the following words, viz: “ These are to certify, that I have this day settled accounts with Adam Steuart, on behalf of Colin Dunlop and Son Co, down to the 1st of January, 1772, and the balance due them is 606/. 2s. 9. 3-4d. sterling money, bearing interest from the 10th of October last, and to be paid off in bills of exchange, or current money at the exchange then going.

As witness my hand this 27th day of February, 1772; “ Jacob Funk.” And that the plaintiffs and defendant were British subjects at the time of the passing of the said note and assumption. It is also agreed, that on the 10th of July, 1777, there was due for principal and interest on the said note and assumption, the sum of 1,229/. 7s. and the principal sum mentioned in the said note and assumption of 606/. 2s; 9. 3-4d. sterling, equal to 1,010/. 4s. 7d. current money, carried an interest of six per cent. That the plaintiffs continued British subjects from the 27th of February, 1772, the date of the said