Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Bond vs. Haas' Exrs

BOND vs Haas' Exrs

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1791
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/78029

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
2 U.S. 133
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

BOND

Respondent

Haas' Exrs

Excerpt

bond v. haas' exrs - 2 u.s. 133 (1791) u.s. supreme court bond v. haas' exrs, 2 u.s. 133 (1791) 2 u.s. 133 (dall.) bond v. haas's executors supreme court of pennsylvania september term, 1791 this was a scire facias on a mortgage, dated 15th august 1777, for the payment of l 250. at four per cent, current page 2 u.s. 133, 134 money of pennsylvania, in one year. at the time the mortgage was executed continental money was depreciated, and at three for one. the plaintiff insisted 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 opposed the admission of this evidence: and 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 case 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. footnotes [ footnote * ] 1 dall. 135. but fee, likewise, dall. 267. hollingsworth versus ogle.

Full Judgment

BOND v. HAAS' EXRS - 2 U.S. 133 (1791)
U.S. Supreme Court BOND v. HAAS' EXRS, 2 U.S. 133 (1791)

2 U.S. 133 (Dall.)

Bond
v.
Haas's Executors

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

September Term, 1791

This was a Scire Facias on a mortgage, dated 15th August 1777, for the payment of L 250. at four per cent, current

Page 2 U.S. 133, 134

money of Pennsylvania, in one year. At the time the mortgage was executed continental money was depreciated, and at three for one. The plaintiff insisted 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 opposed the admission of this evidence: And

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 case 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. Footnotes

[ Footnote * ] 1 Dall. 135. But fee, likewise, Dall. 267. Hollingsworth versus Ogle.



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial