The Patrick Henry
The Patrick Henry
Opinion of the Court
The libellant in this case claims that he is entitled to recover the market value of the coin at this port at the time it should have been delivered. The claimant, on the other hand, insists that in estimating the damages, the value of the sovereign should be • taken at the rate fixed by law for computation in ordinary commercial transactions, the same as if this were a suit to recover the amount of a bill of exchange or other promise to pay. I do not accede to this view. The agreement in this bill of lading is not a promise to pay money, but to transport certain articles on freight. Whether those articles were gold coins, gold bars, gold dust, or gold in any other form of use or ornament, can make no difference. Dike every other article placed on freight and covered by a bill .of lading, unless delivered according to the terms of, the contract of affreightment, their value may be recovered by the holder of the bill. That value is to be estimated in the currency of the country in which the port of delivery is situated and where the suit is brought, unless otherwise provided for in the contract itself. The proof is that these sovereigns were worth in this market, at .the time they should have been delivered, $7.05 apiece in our money. Our recent legal tender act and the decisions under it cited at bar have no application to this part of the case
There is another question of trifling importance so far as the amount depending upon
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The PATRICK HENRY
- Status
- Published