## Facts

- In February 1792, Searight sold Calbraith & Co. a bill of exchange for **150,000 livres tournois**, payable in **Paris** six months after sight.
- Calbraith & Co. agreed to pay Searight **£10,625 Pennsylvania currency** for the bill (computed at **17 pence per livre**) by their own notes dated **May 1, 1792**, payable **July 1, 1792**.
- The bill was drawn on **Bourdieu, Chollet & Bourdieu** of London and was accepted, with payment to be made in Paris at the domicil of **Cottin, Jonge & Girardot**.
- When the bill was presented for payment in Paris (October 1792), Cottin, Jonge & Girardot **tendered payment in assignats**, French paper currency that, under then-existing French law, was treated as a **lawful tender** for debts.
- The presenter (acting under instructions from the holder) **refused to accept assignats**, stating that he would accept only **French crowns** (specie), and each side protested against the other.
- The bill was returned under protest for nonpayment as a practical matter, and two suits followed in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania: (1) **Searight sued** to recover the agreed price for the bill, and (2) **Calbraith & Co. sued** Searight for **damages arising from the protest**.
- The two actions were **tried together to the same jury** by agreement, and the central dispute turned on what the parties intended about the **medium of payment** when they contracted, since the contract contained **no express term** requiring specie.

## Issues

1. When parties in Pennsylvania sell and purchase a bill payable in Paris, and the contract does not specify the medium of payment, is the transaction to be treated as calling for payment in **specie**, or as leaving the medium to the **lawful tender at the place of payment**?
2. If payment in assignats was a lawful tender in France, what is the effect of the holder’s refusal to accept assignats on (a) the seller’s claim for the purchase price and (b) the buyer’s claim for protest damages?
3. If a protest follows from refusal of the tender offered, are protest-related damages limited to **nominal** recovery?

## Decision

- The court treated the controlling point as a question for the jury: **whether the parties contracted for payment in gold and silver, or instead left the medium of payment to the laws of France** where the bill was payable.
- In **Searight v. Calbraith** (Searight’s action for the contract price), the verdict was **for Calbraith & Co.**, so Searight **did not recover** the agreed price.
- In **Calbraith & Co. v. Searight** (Calbraith & Co.’s action for protest damages), the verdict was **for Calbraith & Co.**, but only for **nominal damages (six pence)**.
- The combined result reflected the jury’s resolution of the parties’ intended payment terms and the limited consequences where the tender made at the place of payment was refused and the protest followed from that refusal.

## Legal Principles

- When a contract for a foreign-payable bill is silent on the medium of payment, the factfinder may determine the parties’ intent from the surrounding circumstances, including their knowledge of foreign tender laws and the nature of the bargain.
- Parties who arrange for payment in a foreign country, without an express specie term, may be understood to have left the acceptable medium to what is **lawfully receivable** at the place of payment at the time performance is due.
- A refusal to accept a tender that is treated as lawful tender at the place of payment can prevent the refusing party from shifting the full consequences of “nonpayment” to the other contracting party.
- Where a protest stems from the holder’s refusal of the tender offered, recovery tied to the protest may be limited to **nominal damages** rather than substantial compensation.

## Conclusion

Searight v. Calbraith involved paired suits over a Paris-payable bill where the payor tendered assignats and the holder’s agent demanded specie; the circuit court left to the jury whether the parties meant specie payment or accepted French lawful tender, and the verdicts denied Searight recovery of the bill’s price while allowing Calbraith & Co. only six pence in protest damages.


Searight v. Calbraith, 21 F. Cas. 927 (1796)