Litigants: | Brown v. Barry |
Arguedatea: | August 8 |
Arguedateb: | 9 |
Argueyear: | 1797 |
Decidedate: | August 15 |
Decideyear: | 1797 |
Fullname: | Brown v. Barry |
Usvol: | 3 |
Uspage: | 365 |
Parallelcitations: | 3 Dall. 365; 1 L. Ed. 638; 1797 U.S. LEXIS 205 |
Majority: | Elsworth |
Joinmajority: | unanimous |
Brown v. Barry, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 365 (1797), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court determined the following:
The suspension of a statute for a limited time is not a repeal of it.The intention of the legislature when discovered must prevail, any rule of construction. declared by previous acts, to the contrary notwithstanding.
In an action on a bill of exchange, which had not been protested for non-payment, it is not necessary to aver in the declaration that the bill had been protested for non-acceptance.
As to bills of exchange drawn in the United States payable in Europe, the custom of merchants in this country does not ordinarily require, to recover on a protest for non-payment, that a protest for non-acceptance shall be produced, though the bills were not accepted.
Where the action is for foreign money, and its value is not averred, a verdict cures the defect.
The reason that debet for foreign money is ill, is the uncertainty of its value; and this is cured by a verdict.[1]