An appeal was then taken to the King in Council and entered in November, 
1759. 140 Upon the Committee hearing in July, 1760, appellant insisted that 
the tender was invalid, as consisting of neither Massachusetts bills of credit 
nor current lawful money of New England. The debt should be measured by 
one standard, that of silver or the value of Massachusetts bills of credit (which 
were not depreciated), but in the judgment appealed from there had been no 
regard shown to the value of the sum conditioned to be paid or to the currency 
in which judgment was given. By this conduct the debt was reduced to 
one-fifth of its real value. 141 The respondent, however, contended that at the 
date of the execution of the bond and of putative payment, old tenor bills of 
credit of the four New England colonies were considered as "current lawful 
money of New England." At that time no other medium of currency could 
have been contemplated but bills of credit old tenor such as had been duly 
tendered by the respondent. 142 The Committee, however, declared that the 
words "current lawfull money of New England" did not mean bills of credit 
of any colony, but were used in contradistinction to such meaning, and that 
the tender made was invalid. 143 
From the very terms of the bond it would appear that by the expression 
"current lawfull money of New England" bills of credit were not intended, 
for in such case the insertion of "good public bills of credit of the province of 
Massachusetts Bay" was redundant. The Committee obviously was influenced 
in its thinking by the statutory refusal to sanction as legal tender any bills of 
credit, but Jared Ingersoll, present at the hearing, thought that the Committee 
might be mistaken in its interpretation, "not being acquainted with the currency 
and understanding of the people in New England." 144 Obviously the 
Committee did not choose to treat the matter as a mere problem of contract 
interpretation where conformity with colonial practice would govern. It preferred 
to view the case as involving a broader issue of policy, and this attitude 
undoubtedly strengthened the effect of 24 George 11, c. 53, in prohibiting payments 
in depreciated bills of credit where "current lawfull money of New 
England" was specified. 
It is interesting to notice, however, that in ascertaining the quantum of the 
debt Lord Mansfield turned to the clause allowing payment in Massachusetts 
Bay bills of credit. Since these bills had been redeemed by virtue of a 1748 
Bankitig in the Province of the Massachusetts- 
Bay (1901), c. xvii; Bullock, Essays on the 
Monetary History of the United States (1900), 
222 et seq.; in Connecticut, see Bronson, 
Historical Account of the Connecticut Currency, 
1 Papers New Haven Colony Hist. Soc, 
46 et seq.; 1 Davis, ut supra, c. xix. 
140 PC 2/107/189. 
141 Case of Appellant, Add. MS, 36,218/44-45. 
142 Case of Respondent, Add. MS, 36,218/46- 
48. 
143 Ingersoll Papers, 240. 
144 Ibid., note.