Lee v. Wilcocks
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THIS case had been tried at Nisi Prius, before Gibg0N t an¿ a motion was now made by the defendant for a J ’ . * . new trial, on the ground that the jury had erred m estimating the value of the Turkish piastre, and also in the amount allowed for interest,
1Per curiam
With respect to the value of the Turkish piastre there has been an evident mistake, occasioned by the inadvertence of both parties, whose attention was confined to matters whicn were more important. The settled rule is, where foreign money is the object of the suit, to fix the value according to the rate of exchange at the time of trial. As to the interest, the verdict was'against the charge of the Court, and, as it appears, against the contract of .the parties. We think it right, therefore, that the defendant should have an opportunity of correcting these two errors. If the plaintiff will…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Montgomery v. PoormanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Guiteman v. DavisNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1869
- Marburg v. MarburgCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1866
- Gunther v. ColinNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1869
- Mckinley v. O'KesonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847