Idaho semi-weekly world. (Idaho City, Boise County, Idaho Territory) 1867-1868, 1867-10-30
CITY, TERRITORY: OCTOBER
GREENBACK DECISION.

The AUalanche of last Saturday contains the
report in full of very Important decision
rendered, at the late term of the District
Court for Owyhee county, by Hon. John Cum
minis, Presiding Judge, in a case where the
validity of the Specific Contract of this Terri
tory was involved. The case is thus stated:
JOSIAH NICHOLS Us. H r. CARTER, ct. al.:
This is an action of assumpsit to recover the
sum of 1926, claimed to be due upon prom
issory note executed and delivered by the de-
PENDANTS to the plaintiff on the 28th of March,
1867, payable in gold coin or legal tender
notes at their current values" The prayer of
the complaint, following the terms of the note,
asks for Judgment specifying the kind of cur.
rency in which it can be discharged or satisfied
On this complaint, there being no answer by
defendants, plaintiff moves for Judgment in
accordance with the prayer of his said com
plant. offering at the same time to prove that
the current or customary value of legal tender
Treasury Notes was about eighty cents of their
face or par value.
This motion is based upon the provisions of
an Act of the Legislature passed at the Second
session thereof, commonly called the Specific
Contract Act The first section Of this Act
u,
express or implied, for the direct payment of
money or currency, the Judgment whether the
same be by default, or after verdict, upon the
decision of the Court, or the report of ref
cree, shall follow the contract and be made
payable III the kind of money or currency stip-
ulated for therein, or understood by the terms
thereof" The granting of this motion is re-
sisted by defendants counsel upon the ground
that the Act of the Territorial Legislature
above referred to is in violation of or in con-
flict with the Act Of Congress of February
25th, 1862, usually denominated the Legal
Tender Act.
After referring to his own decision in the
Ada county case of Haas rs. Misener & Lam
kin, last Spring; the decisions in the case of
Miliken ct al. VS. SlOat, 1st Nevada State Re
ports, and the California case of Carpenter vs.
Atherton, Judge Cummins proceeds as follows:
As stated by that Court, there is no differ
ence or distinction in law between dollar in
gold or in silver, or in paper They are the
expressly authorized legal currency, by the
paramount law of the land, and in all COM
mercial transactions before the law, they rep
resent precisely the same legal values. And
hence it is no more competent for the parties
to contract to make a difference by express
stipulation and thereby make it incumbent
upon Courts of Justice to enforce such con-
tracts according to their precise terms in this
respect than it is by the introduction of the
Inhibited evidence Both courses or plans are
solely for the accomplishment of but one pur-
pose, namely: That of making difference in
values of dollars or of different pieces of cur
rency, that is, gold or Treasury notes, of the
same denomination.
For more full expression of the reasons
and authorities upon this subject, reference is
made to the case of Miliken ct al rs. SlOat,
in the case already cited
am, therefore, firmly of the opinion that
the Act of the Legislature, approved Dec. 3,
1864, and known as the Specific Contract Act,
lis in direct conflict with the Act of Congress,
passed Feb. 25, 1862, and is therefore null and
void in SO far as it authorizes discrimination
between the different characters of legakcur-
rency with reference to the fact simply of its
being gold, silver or legal tender notes. No
matter what may be the terms of a contract
for the payment of money, whether to pay In
gold coin or in such legal tender notes at their
current rates or otherwise, sucha contract can
be discharged by the legal currency of the
country at the value fixed upon it by law. And
all judgments upon such contract or for money
should be in dollars and cents only without
specifying any particular kind of currency, or
denominations of legal tender treasury notes
or pieces of coin.
This disposition Of plaintiff motion renders
| it altogether unnecessary to pass upon the
question as to the admissibility of the proposed
testimony as to the current rates or value of
Treasury notes. La fact there IS no occasion
for such testimony.
The motion is allowed so far as to authorize
of 0lo
but without specifying any particular kind of
currency to be paid by defendants.
Gov. GTBBs AGAIN.-In a Washington dis