Marburg v. Marburg

Cochran, J., delivered the opinion of this Court. This suit was brought by the appellee to recover a balance 'due for goods sold to the appellant at Frankfort on the Main. The debt stated in the bill of particulars to be 26,811.44 florins is admitted, and it appears that this sum, by an agreement between the parties, was to be paid to the appellee in florins, at Frankfort, the place of his residence. All the important questions presented by the exceptions relate to the rule for ascertaining the amount recoverable in the money or currency of this country, in satisfaction of the debt payable at Frankfort, and for the purpose of disposing of them as a whole, without regard to their order, we propose to consider and determino the general character and operation of the rule for ascertaining the extent of the ■creditor’s remedy in that class of cases.

This subject has been discussed in America as well as in' the English Courts, and the same doctrines, as we think, have been finally settled in both. In Cash vs. Kennion, 11 Ves., 314, where a debt contracted in Jamaica was made payable in London, Lord Eldon held that the debtor was bound to pay the expense of remitting the money; “that if a debtor agrees to pay £100 in London on a given day, he ought to have that sum there on that day. If he fails in that contract, wherever the creditor sues him, the law of that country ought to give him just as much as he would have had if the contract had been executed.” This rule was adopted in Delegal vs. Naylor, 20 Eng. C. L. Rep., 199, and also in Scott vs. Bevan, 22 Eng.

C. L. Rep. 28. The best considered of the American cases are in strict accordance with these authorities. Story, J., in Grant vs. Healy, 3 Sum., 523 , said, “that whenever a debt made payable in one country is sued for in another country, the -creditor is entitled to receive the full sum necessary to replace the money in the country where it ought to have been paid, with interest for the delay, for then, and then. ²⁰ only, is he fully indemnified for the violation of the con-» tract. In every such case the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to have the debt due to him first ascertained at the par of exchange between the two countries, and then to have the rate of exchange between those countries added to or subtracted from the amount, as the case may require,, in order to replace the money in the country where it ought to be paid.’* This doctrine he propounds as one founded on principles of reciprocal justice.

In the case of Lee vs. Wilcocks, 5 Serg. & Rawle, 48 , the Court declares the settled rule to be, “where foreign money is the object of the suit, to fix the value according to the rate of exchange at the time of trial;” and the same rule was applied in Smith vs. Shaw, 2 Wash., 167 . The New York and Massachusetts cases, referred to by the appellant in support of a computation based upon the par of exchange, were reviewed in Grant & Healy, and were rejected as authorities on that point-. The best considered cases bearing on this question are collated in 3 Kent’s Com., 311, note, and in 2 Par. Notes & Bills, 370, and the rule deduced from them is, that a creditor suing here for an amount payable to him in a foreign country, in the currency of that country, is entitled to recover an amount sufficient to produce the sum of the debt where it was made payable; or, in other words, an amount equal to what he must pay to remit the debt to the'place where it was payable.

It will also be seen from the authorities referred to, that the amount recoverable should be computed according to the rate of exchange at the time of the trial or judgment. .This principle in both particulars must, in our opinion, be applied to the present case, and we hold, accordingly, that the appellant was entitled to a judgment for an amount which, at the time of' trial, would have enabled him to realize the