Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Bond versus Haas's Executors, 1791 — 2 U.S. 133 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Bond versus Haas's Executors
2 U.S. 1332 Dall. 133·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1791·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Bond versus Haas’s Executors.
THIS was a Scire Facias on a mortgage, dated 15th August 1777, for the payment of £250. at four per cent, current money of Pennsylvania, in one year. At the time the mortgage was executed continental money was depreciated, and at three for one. The plaintiff infilled that the whole sum should be paid in specie, and offered to prove that Adam Haas, in his life time, informed a Scrivener, that the money he had received was as good to him as gold and silver; that it was so, in effect, to the plaintiff; that he was sensible that he ought to pay her specie, and desired the Scrivener to draw a writing to secure it; and that Haas died soon after, before he had an opportunity of executing any instrument to secure it to the plaintiff. The defendant oppofed the admission of this evidence: And
[MAJORITY — By the Court:]
By the Court:
—This would be, in effect, altering the contract, and increasing the value of the money, in direct opposition to the act of Assembly. It is settled in the Cafe of Lee and Biddis that such evidence shall not be received. The evidence stated, is not to explain the contract, but to prove a new and a different one: And if such an offer as is mentioned created any legal obligation, a different suit must be brought to enforce it. The witness, therefore, must be rejected.
The plaintiff thereupon suffered a nonsuit.
1 Dall. 135. But see, likewise, Dall. 267. Hollingsworth versus Sit’ Da