Brown v. Barry
| Brown v. Barry | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued August 8–9, 1797 Decided August 15, 1797 | |
| Full case name | Brown v. Barry |
| Citations | 3 U.S. 365 (more) |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Elsworth, joined by 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]
References
[edit]- ^ Condensed reports of cases in the Supreme court of the United States: containing the whole series of the decisions of the court from its organization to the commencement of the Peters's Reports at January term 1827, with copious notes of parallel cases in the Supreme, Circuit, and ..., Volume 1, (Thomas, Cowperthwait, 1844) pg. 165 [1]
External links
[edit]- Text of Brown v. Barry, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 365 (1797) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist