Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-10-01
An I'm Portant Injunction nCase-Greenbacks
Not q Legal Tender.

An important njunction case. in which Hugh
Geiston is complainant, and Mary A. Frazer
and others are defendants, has been pending
Tor some time In the City Circuit Court before
Hon. udge Alexander. A motion was made
10 dissolve the Injunction In the case, which
motIon was sustained by Judge Alexander
ano his opinion filed on Sal day last in which
ne declared that greenbacks are not legal
tenoer. The facts In the case, with the opinion
nled IN reference 70 the different points raised,
s here annexed. and will no doubt be read
with great interest.
The facts an the case are that Mary A. Frazer
and John Frazer conveyed a certain portion
Of the maiden estate Of the former to trpstee
in trust for the sole and sc parate use of Mary
A. frazier, during the joint lives of herself and
A. Frazier, with the consent and approbatioa
OF the trustee, certified by his writing in the
deed OF conveyance, 70 sell and disbarse abso-
Iutely or Tor any less estate, the whole or any
part thereof And after the death OF either the
said John and Mary A, as to such part as
should not be disposed OF under the power in
trust for the Longest heir or survivor Of the
said John and Mary A. Frazier, and the heirs
and assigns OF the survived forever.
Mary A. Frazier, on the 18th day OF May,
lsS3, executed lease of said property % WIN.
Y. Harris, his personal representatives and as
signs, under the power, IN the deed of trust
and on the some day Mary A. Frazier and John
Frazer entered into contract or covenant, en-
oorsed upon said lease, whereby they cove
nanted 10 convey the fee simple Of said prop-
erty 10 Vim. c. Harris, the lessee, his heirs or
assigns. in extinguishment OF the rent reserved
the principal OF the rent received This was
executed and acknowledged before the same
justices who took the Acknowledgement OF the
lease and on the same day. The lease. with
the covenant Of inguishment annexed 20 IL,
was sent TO Cabot, the trustee, In Philadelphia,
who, on the 10th day Of May, 1893, executed
me lease under the power; and the paper was
The interest Of Harris under the lease and on
the property was decreed TO be sold under de-
cree Of Baltimore county court, and the COM
fhp ra1 has ffar
under, and the trustees under the decree exc
cuted, on the 18th of July. 1893, the conveyance
of that interest to GeIston.
The complainant Gelston rendered to Mary
a. and John Frazier the principal OF the ground
rent in legal tender notes of the United States,
otherwise called "greenbacks," which were
refused, Mary A. Frazier contending that Gels
ton was alone entitled TO a conveyance upon
paying the amount in gold and silver coin of
the United States" The three ler ding points
presented IN argument upen the above facts
Were.
1. Was the contract or covenant signed by
Frazier and wife TO Harris. for the extinguish-
meHt OF the rent, within the terms Of the trust
deed. and binding upon Mary A. Frazierl
2 Was IL such q contract as a court OF equity
would enforce specifically and IL so, has the
complainant Gelston, under the assignment
10 him by the Trustees, OF July 2I, is3a. ac-
remit
g. The constituiionaIity of the act of Con-
gress making "greenbacks" a legal tender in
payment of debts.
Tne Court decided. upon the first point that
tne Trustee, not having united in the covenant
with Mary A Frazier and John Frazier to
convey the tee simple TO Harris in extnguish-
ment OF rent IL, the covenant, could not be
considered as part OF the lease, runniug with
the land, nor as auxiliary thereto, but sep-
arate and distinct paper and a mere naked
promise. because Harris did not unite In il
aud Cabot was stranger to it and did not
unite IN its execution, and was, therefore,
void. ii
Upon the second point the court decided me
because IL Is void for want OF mutuality-is
separate from the lease, and Is not covenant
accruing with the land, and though Frazier
might be obliged TO sell, Harms was under no
obligation TO buy, and that 9elston did not
acquire the right 70 redeem by his assignment,
but only acquired the leasehold estate sold.
And that Mary A. Frazer having the power
unite was not bound by the contract, unless
contained in deed Of conveyance, executed
as prescribed by the deed of trust, and thai the
papers in this case all fail TO unite the quali-
ties Of deed Of conveyance as prescribed by
the truSt deed; and no deed as REQ uired having
been MADE the contract cannot be enforced.
Upon the third point the court decided the
backs legal tender unconstitutional and void,
an assumption OF power not granted by the
States TO their agent, the General Government,
and the court in argument puts the Important
and silverl aE : : I
The case was argued by John II. Ing and +.
a. Linchicum for complainant 4elston. and
for defendants. The complainant has carried
the case to the Court OF Appeals.-BaitimOre
Commercial