The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-12-22
MARINE COURT.


The case will be- resumed and finished on Monday.
MARINE COURT.
Important Decision In Relation TO Contracts
Payable In Gold.
Before Judge Gross
II c. Wef.ser anthony Oechs.-On the 9th day OF
May, 1857 the plaintiff captain Of the ship Arctic, at
Bordeaux, signed bill Of lading for quantity Of wns
freight S273 IT. 10 be paid Al New York In gold The
goods we're delivered. The consignee Of the goods
Anthony Oschs refused TO pay the said freight n gold
but offered TO pay $273 II, or dollar for dollar, in
United States currency. The ships agents, Funch
Meincke wendt refused 10 receive the In paper
and brought suit for $273 II in gold It's equivalent
$3s5 II in United States currency, tho time Of de-
livery.
Judgment for plaintiff, sass II and COSTS Counsel
for plaintiff j. D. Reymsrt Counsel for defendant J.
r Hill S.sa- ,sss..spf ,i;s.s.ss u q. '...s!s
The following IL the decision OF Judge Gross 6ed In
this achon:-
This an action brought TO recover for the breach OF
defendants contract to pay SAL % in gold for the
freight from Bordeaux 10 tins port in the ship Arctic,
ON twenty i've casks Of VINE Or @
In United States currency THE difference OF the depre
citation Of currency a. the time Of delivery Of the wine at
this port being Sll2 Although tho defendant In bis
sets counter claim for loss Of some OF the
vine ~ negligence yet Is NO evidence offered by
plaintiff ,ha. the fregh. CLAIMED had been earned The
defendant in this 10 his does not allego
tendcr Of United States notes In payment Of the freight
nor claim the supposed benefit Of the act OF congress
making Treasury notes legal tender for debts am,
therefore, relieved from the necessity Of passing upon
The ss Ss' %sv " b * NJ 70
Treasury notes Of hominslly tho same amount
II sesmi however, from the authorities cited in the
pseaso 70 sslsiMns that question 1t may DO proper
athough not necessary 10 this case IN my Judgment
2 sss.s q 70 ss Ss%sss VII
There Is nothing in The act Of Congress forbddIng il
in the Law Of this State and II IL fact beyond DIS
pute that the government Of this country where the
contract was to be performed, makes god and silver
lawful In the payment OF deots The act making TreA.
sury notes lawful money does not make lhem sxclu-
svey 90, but leaves gold and silver equally law u and
therefore the plaintiff could properly designate either OF
the two the kind or species Of lawful money In which
he would BE- paid But even II y depended upon com
msrcial usage, the contract made or gave the law,
"lsoem enius eonfracf1 dat"
Second Did the parties provide the contracts
delivered :. the port Of New York for the sum Of 81
god per ., ton Light and g. gold per ton S'.vy"
clearly express The intent Of the paes concsding,
Ido that the parties In making The CONTRACTS were bound
70 and did know the Law Of currency here they two
money called gold and as, think they had perfect
right 70 do Il seems clear, then, that such contract
7Aird-can the courts enforce such contract aud
20, ought they 70 do sof Surely there no:hng
70 prevent this court of aw from adequate damages
failure 10 pay in nvewsny bonds of the government,
the damages In either case being the value OF the
gold or bonds IN the market on The day
1ovec Of Sooc /. a"a To-Day and promised 70
return in week asd failed 70 do 80, but offered the
deemed 10 have performed his contract By the osr OF
those ac.eA and could there DO any difficulty In
gold not Ind ouRn If ba n n M
Il 10 we'll settled rule Of Interpretation OF contracts or
ligatory upcn oil urv, 20 give effect - the ntoniion Of
seen, the intention have been that the freight should
b paid IN that kind Of lawful money Of our country
s s.mss s1s s: S ss'
distinguish II from and exclude the other lawful
money Of the United states called greenbacks or legal
cuso aerus well appliea IL IL fair to presume that
the contracting parties 1t the time Of making this
paper dollar was than the United States gold dollar as
the fact notorious and also That gold being the
standard. has nxed In rnsc value throughout the
world that II never depreclacs, but that paper does.
Then Why should not tho court enforce contract ike
this To hod that ought not would In my judgment DO
. reproach upon the Law; and this to deny the
pia ntis right TO damages for the difference between
legal tender notes and gold the day Of the breach In his
recovery (which blythe established usage a.ays TO be
with tns plainest principles Of Justice. am not un.
mindful Of the decisions which supposed to settle
this question adversely TO the view take OF ~ and TO
which my attention has been directed by the defendants
counsel In reference TO the case OF Meyer IS Rooss.
welt, IN the Couryof Appeals ~ New York, 40i, lave
TO say that the question before not decided IN
that case the Of Meyer there pay tho
amount OF the bond and mortgage lawful money OF
the United Statcs.n aud here tho particular kind OF
money Il designated The OF Kempton va. Brown
son. decided ~ The general term for Erie county was
an action In equity 70 procure the Satisfaction or
bond and mortgage given 70 secure the payment OF
81 500 In gold silver con lawful money fths United
States the defendant having rendered tho amount 10
legal tender notee Tho varies from this In other
respects The reasoning or the learned Judge tDaniesl
delivering the opinion Of the MAJORITY OF the court BY
satishes me, and cannot subscribe to the
doctrine therein enunciated The opinion OF that able
jurlst Mr.. Justice Grover who dissented 10 conclusive
10 my mind, aud although am disposed TO pay ell
proper respect 10 the decision OF the judges cons
iuling the majority or that Court hold myself bound
by that decision, should be thought the
precise question here involved. That dccison 10
doubedy 10 be considered ~ res ddjudcpa In the case
before that Court but not Ia my judgment Of binding
authority In this The same thing may said OF
the decision pronounced In the superior Court In tho
case OF Wilson w. Morgan. 30 Howard $50 and tho other
70 which have been referred. / cannot
but think that when this question shall come UP and
have been passed upon by The Court Of last fseort
such contract will be upheld, and the tender OF de.
preciasd paper dollar be hed 10 be insufficient 10 dis
saaps time rendering he dnsrsncs between The paper
and gold Wy couciuson V that the plaintiff 10 entitled
TO the OF sass IL with interest," damages
for . breach OF DEFENDANTS contract pay for The
freight In gold OF m equivnient, she difference between
above amount | have resched this couc usion after
careful examination and mature consideration. VOL
knowing thai the question u one OF importance
sspecaly In this great commercial city, whsre gold
Immense amounts, and believing - DO, that 10 the
highest VI 70 uphold Asd reldy enforce
the psrformsscs Of snntSaen. Jsdgmsp, Tor plaintiff
wv 49,