Definition
A money demand is a claim seeking recovery of a specific, fixed, or readily calculable sum of money — as distinguished from a claim for unliquidated damages requiring jury assessment. The term appears most frequently in procedural and remedial contexts, where courts and statutes distinguish between claims whose amounts are determinable by arithmetic from claims whose amounts must be evaluated and awarded by a fact-finder.
Two features define the classic money demand: (1) the obligation is grounded in contract or some other instrument creating a definite duty to pay, and (2) the amount owed can be ascertained without jury intervention — either because it is stated expressly or because it flows from a calculation applied to undisputed facts.
Common Confusion
A money demand is not the same as a claim for damages. Damages — particularly in tort but also in contract where losses are disputed — require a trier of fact to evaluate, estimate, and liquidate an amount. A money demand presupposes that the amount is already fixed or mechanically determinable. The distinction is procedurally significant: courts in many historical and some current procedural regimes permit default judgment, summary proceedings, or accelerated recovery on a money demand precisely because no jury assessment is needed. Conflating the two can lead a researcher to misread procedural history, particularly in older equity and common law records where the basis for a remedy determined the forum and the process.
Why It Matters in Research
The term carries its greatest weight in procedural history. Under older common law pleading — and under many nineteenth-century codes and practice acts — whether a claim was characterized as a money demand affected which court had jurisdiction, whether the plaintiff could obtain a default judgment, and what process was required before execution. Researchers working in pre-code case law or legislative materials will encounter statutes and rules that apply special procedures to money demands: expedited judgment, wage garnishment, summary attachment, and the like.
Several traps appear in historical sources. First, Bouvier's definition is broader than Black's in a way that matters: Bouvier extends money demand to claims that are not purely liquidated in the modern sense but arise from contractual or quasi-contractual undertakings — including replevin bail obligations and apprenticeship agreements. A researcher using only Black's narrower formulation might incorrectly classify a historical claim. Second, older statutes and court rules using the phrase "money demand" may have jurisdictional thresholds attached (e.g., justice of the peace jurisdiction over money demands not exceeding a stated sum), making the term a marker for forum and procedural history, not just substantive law. Third, equity courts historically would not entertain a pure money demand unless the plaintiff could show no adequate remedy at law — so the presence or absence of a money demand framing in equity pleadings often signals a strategic choice by counsel.
For corpus researchers, the term connects to attachment and garnishment materials, to default judgment procedure, to small claims and justice court history, and to the broader architecture of liquidated versus unliquidated obligations.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Bouvier's agree on the core: a money demand is distinguished from damages by the fixedness or calculability of the sum. Both contrast it with claims requiring jury liquidation. The practical difference between the two entries is one of scope. Black's is tighter — a money demand is a claim for a fixed or calculable sum, period. Bouvier's is more expansive and practice-oriented, illustrating the concept through specific applications: replevin bail undertakings, apprenticeship obligations. Bouvier's treatment reflects mid-nineteenth-century Indiana practice (citing 8 Ind. 339 and 5 Ind. 538) and signals that the term was not purely theoretical — it had direct application in determining which claims triggered particular procedural machinery.
Neither source addresses the term's treatment under modern procedural codes, where the liquidated/unliquidated distinction survives in rules governing default judgment (Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for instance, requires a court hearing to determine damages when they are not a sum certain, while a sum certain default may be entered by the clerk). The modern doctrine is a direct descendant of the historical money demand concept, though the term itself has largely given way to "sum certain" or "liquidated amount" in contemporary procedure.
Jurisdictional Note
The procedural significance of the money demand distinction varies by jurisdiction and by era. State small claims courts, justice courts, and magistrate courts historically derived their jurisdictional limits expressly from money demand statutes. Some states retain expedited or summary procedures for claims on money demands — including cognovit notes and confession-of-judgment provisions — that would not be available for unliquidated damage claims.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia: Performance -- Demand for Adequate Assurances (UCC §2-609, Restatement §251) — relevant to the contractual foundation of many money demands and to the demand-before-suit requirement that can precede enforcement.