The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-22

establish such usage set out in the third and four
exceptions, we have determined TO ne not only in1
SUFFICIENT, but wholly inadmis5ible for such purpose.
And upon the state OF case then before the jur3
the defendants sixth prayer should also have been
Il very properly stated the law upon the
ir0m which they might find the existence OF usage.
But We think the court below WIS right In rejectA
~ tne deiendants seventh prayer. 1t proposed NOT
only 70 exclude the effect OF usage upon the entry Of
ae SUN december 1851 but also 10 exclude all in.
the nu conclusions that might be drawn irom
se ao'aun VI the particular form ana terms or the
en.Iy Itself 70 the facts and circumstances undeg
ton n won Mss made This, granted as an instrucs
AS 70 the defendants eighth PRAYER the plaintiffs
% h 40. 70 recover only In the event OF tho
CON- no demand having been made for payment in
any other currency, and although this Drawer did
Of money ound To To Se e5 ve s me me
nndlng would have been certain enough To have
secure 10 ,as the 70 render the proper to
Inc prayer should have been granted
The ninth prayer Of the defendant Ia the nature OF
an exception TO evidence has already been dIsposed
or IN determining the question raised by the third
and fourth exceptions as to the instability of the
evidence offered TO prove usage.
1t now remains for to consider the instruction.
that was given to the jury by the court In lien OF th
various prayers that were. offered and rejected.
This instruction was erroneous because it put thu
jury to ind usage OF which, as we have said there
was no sufficient evidence. 1t was erroneous how.
sructed that they found the existence o the speciaI
contract declared OH, and that demand had been
panf are entitled to recover sum equal 70 me
value OF $4,000 In gold on the 2Sth OF May 1854 with
interest thereon" The proof was that on the 2sth
OF May, 1854, gold was at eightynve aud eghty-si9S
and q half premium and under this instruction q
verdict was found for $e.l5s 80, upon which jndg-
menI was VAST. rendered. This Is Justified we think, BY
Suppose that at the time OF demand made gold, in.
200 premium, and az the time Of trial Of this cause
had been at no premium at all, would it have been
the proper measure Of Justice to have allowed rel
wi inf -
OF demand, to discharge the debt OF $1,000. It,
would be not only the duplication OF principal that
would be Objectionable but the lowance OF interest
the original debt at the rate OF eighteen per cent
IN stead OF SIX which would be clear violation Of
the Usury law o. the State. II such proposition Isl
not maintainable neither s the instruction under
which the verdict In this cause rendered. as the
supposed and the actual proposition involved In tha
tiOns
Gold and silver, at rates regulated by law, constit
tute the legal standard OF value and form currency
In which parties entitled TO deal to the exclusions
OF all other, when specially nominated In the cond
tract; and In tins case the prominent error in the
instruction OF the Court was In directing convert
sion OF the stable and trinscay valuable gold coiU
into the unstable and deprecated paper Currency
gold at o particular period, the medium and measure
OF recovery. The suit was for certain amount
piaintirs' right Of recovery in the event that the
special contract was found to exist the $4,000
IN gold with interest thereon from the time Of the
the contract the piaints were entitled to receive
gold, there IL nothing In the law to pred
vent their getting 1t through the medlumd
OF judgment. On the contrary, by article sd
Of our Code OF public general laws, section /, III
Is declared that the species OF coins struck at the
mint Of the United States and foreign coins at rates
regulated by Congress, 'tshau be taken aud recogX
nized a. the currency OF this State" In ordinary
cases the judgment is simply rendered for so many
dollars and cents without characterlzlng the money
in which IL is to be paid; but In case ike the pre1
sent It would be not only proper but necessary to-
prevent any subsequent question being made a. ia
the right to pay IN different currency TO designate
In the Judgment the species OF money that the palni
TINS may be entitled to receive In other words the
Judgment should be rendered for 80 many d0larsI
payable In gold or silver, as the case may be.
Differing from the court below In the particulars
specified In this opinion, must reverse the udg)
ment appealed FROM and award procedend0.
Judgment reversed and pr0cedend0 awarded.
Decided December 9, 1865