Case ID: iowa_23/html/0331-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lowe, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilson et al. v. Triblecock.
    Legal tender ¡ treasury notes. The act of congress making treasury notes a legal tender1, is constitutional and valid; and a note payable in specie may be discharged in legal tender notes. Nor is the case varied by the fact that the debt was contracted before the passage of the act..
    
      Appeal from Van Burén District Court.
    
    Tuesday, December 10.
    The record makes this case. On the 25th day of June, 1861, the plaintiff .executed and delivered his note to the order of defendant, for $900, payable in one year, in specie, with ten per cent interest, secured by mortgage on certain premises therein described.
    On the 28th of February, 1863, the plaintiff tendered to defendant the full amount of said note and mortgage and the accrued interest thereon, in United States legal tender treasury notes, usually called greenbacks, which the defendant refused to accept in payment of the debt, because not the kind of money specified in the contract.
    Subsequently, the plaintiff and his wife, Elizabeth Wilson, filed their bill in chancery, setting forth the foregoing facts and alleging that their tender had been kept good, and the money covering the indebtedness produced in coiirt, and they ask that their mortgage be discharged and the debt satisfied, etc.
    The court overruled a demurrer to the petition and the defendant appeals.
    
      Charles Baldwin and F. Semple for the appellants.
    
      Knapp & Wright and Cook c& Brwry for the appellees.
   Lowe, Ch. J.

The important question raised by the demurrer in this case is, whether the act of congress approved July 16, 1862, making treasury notes a legal tender, is constitutional and valid. We have heretofore answered this question three or four times affirmatively in the light of other adjudications. See Wornibold v. Schlicting, 16 Iowa, 243; Troutman v. Gowing, Id. 415; Hintrager v. Bates, 18 Id. 174; Mulligan v. Hintrager et al., Id. 171.

Able as the argument of counsellor the defendant is, wo' scarcely feel it necessary to re-discuss- the same questions. No new light seems to be shed, making it necessary for us to reconsider our former decisions.

The suggestion that tbe debt was contracted before tbe passage of the act of congress making treasury notes a legal tender, has never been deemed a matter entitled to any consideration; nor do we think the circumstance that the tender in this case was made after the maturity of the debt, can have tbe effect to render tbe same ineffectual. The order overruling tbe demurrer is affirmed, and the cause remanded.

Affirmed.