The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-22
'aE GoD COIN AND LEGAL TEHDLR
QUESTION.

FLaryIand-The Liability Of q Bank % Pay
IN Coin In Cases Where Coin IL Specially
Deposited Anirmed-Review Of the De-
cision.
From the Baltimore Sun, Dec. 1911
We give an ofncial copy OF the opinion OF the Court
OF Appeals In the case Of A. 8 Abel Co. Va Chesa-
peake Bank John 8. Cuttings, Presdent). involving
the liability OF special contracts for coin The case
IL remanded back for trial to the lower court here on
the merits OF the facts showing contract by
OF the special deposit OF $4,000 In gold,
made by the plaintins in the bank In De-
cemoer, 1851, and entered In the PLANTING
bank book by the receiving teller OF the institution
as leash con 90, 000.' Though the trial has to be
gone over again. 1t is with the fact in view that the
Court Of Appeals has decided In Its decision that
''when party agrees to pay In coin, the constitu-
tional standard OF value and the unquestioned legal
currency OF the country there Is justice or pro-
priety In allowing him to discharge his obligation by
laying In currency Of less intrinsic vaue.n 1t Is
proper to say that the litigation has settled two
points which were at issue between the plaints and
the defendant In that case. A jury has found that
the plaintiffs were correct In their statement that the
defendant received from them o deposit to the
amount OF $4,000 In gold coin upon the express
agreement that 1t would return this sum on
demand in coin; and the highest court in
this State has now decided that the Chesapeake
Bank committed q breach OF this contract, when it
refused to repay this sum In coin the demand Of
the plaintiffs, and that the tender of $1,000 in legal
tender notes was not compliance with the legal en-
gagement OF the Chesapeake Bank. These were the
points ut Issue between the Chesapeake Bank and
the prOprietOrs OF this journal, and content
with the vindicaton Of our course which the judy
ment OF the Court OF Appeals concusively affords.
The whole subject Is now before the Supreme
Court 1t Is believed that the Supreme Court will
also recognize the right TO contract In either cur
rency-either In gold or paper-even II 1t sustalns
the legal tender acts but it Is also believed that the
Supreme Court win hold that god pending the sus-
pension OF specie payments Is In effect commodity
as wen IS currency; and that damages are pro-
perly estimated In the paper money OF the country
which Is exclusively currency ana not In gold and
are, OF necessity to be understood calculated
relation to the constltut0naty Of the legal tender
acts, we cannot conceive that there will be any
damages ought to be entered where gold Itself Is the
subject OF the contract The price OF gold, In cur
rency expresses both the value Of gold and Of paper
alone express the true amount Of damage occurring
on any named day, from Q breach OF contract In
THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALs
The Chesapeake Bank Us A. s. Abe1 Co., ON ap-
peal Of the bank, as original defendant from the
napolis Judge Alvey delivered the opinion OF the
Court OF Appeals on the 9th instant a. follows:-
The amended declaration In this case, containing
the common counts on assumpsit, and also . special
count for that the 90th Of December 1851 In
sderatton that the plantfs. At the request Of the
defendant would deliver to the latter for deposit
certain coin to the value Of $4,000, in the gold and
silver coin Of the United States the defendant under
took and promised to return and pay TO the plaintiffs
on demand like sum In gold am silver coin OF the
United States when the paintiiIs should, by check
drawn upon the defendant, ask and demand return
and payment OF the same; and that the plaintifYs,
confding In such undertaking and promise, did then
deliver to the defendant the coin Aforesaid on the
their check, demand Of the defendent return and
payment TO them Of the said sum OF In gold and
silver coin OF the United states but the defendant
pleaded drst, that IL never was indebted alleged
In the common COUNTS and secondly, that It did not
promise as alleged In the special count. To these
At the trial ave bills OF exceptions were taken by
the defendant four to the admissbility OF evidence
by the defendant, and to the instruction given the
jury by the court We shall consider and dispose Of
these several exceptions IN the order In which they
appear TO have been taken at the trial.
First, as to the ruling OF the court TO which the
which the defendant could Complain. The single
entry In the bank book kept by the plainttSwh the
defendant of the deposit made on the 3oth OF Decem-
Der, 1891 was offered In evidence by the plaintiffs for
theepurpose OF verifying the testimony Of witness
Hablston. and OF showing the nature OF the parti-
dcatlve OF the character OF the deposit In question
IL offered to show the general or the &C
count contained In the book, but simply 70 show the
upon the nature OF the contract under which the de-
post was made. The plaintiffs therefore, were not
bound to put In evidence all the other entries In the
book, and when the book was placed in the power
OF the defendant. 10 be used by II evidence for
any legitimate purpose that might be thought proper
We think nothing more could reasonably be re.
CURED.
Second-The second exception presents ques.
to the import and effect OF the entry OF the
30th Of December, 1851 and the proper construction
OF all the facts and circumstance attending II.
deposit with the defendant the entry thereof In the
PLANTING bank book the demand OF The coin by check
ss.l nf
also at the time OF the demand and the bank book with
certain balances struck therein, having been also
given In evidence by the defendant the pantfs then
by several Witnesses most OF them bank officers,
offered TO prove, first, that according to the general
and well known usage OF the banks Of the city OF
Baltimore existing before and at the time OF the de-
post IN question and ever since the entry offered
In evidence In this imports agreement on
the part OF the defendant to return the deposit
kind, and that such evidence was offered for the
purpose OF explaining latent or patent ambiguity
In the entry itself; and secondly that according TO
said usage the striking Of balances subsequently to
such entry does not work any change In the charac
ter OF the particular deposit where the balances
are always more than the amount OF the deposit.
To tue offer thus made the defendant objected and,
the Court everything the objection, the defendant
excepted
Upon this exception two questions aries: first
whether the special contract such as wassought 10
be established by proof OF the usage stated IN the
otter, specially enforcibe irrespective OF what liz
known as the legal tender acts passed by the Con
gress OF the United States; and secondly, whether
such usage admissible for the purpose OF making
the declaration.
l. il the special contract for the payment in specie
could not be enforced otherwise than as for an
ordinary debt, without regard to it's special terms
Of course the usage proposed TO be proved would
be without effect operation, and therefore
relevant or InadInissble. But OF 0pln-
ION that n the contract be established as
alleged In this case the plaintiffs would be en-
titled 10 receive In specie the amount OF the coin,
with interest thereon, payable IN like currency
from the time Of the demand. There Is no reason
why such contract should not be specifically en-
forced. When party agrees 10 pay In coin, the
constitutional standard OF value and the unques
toned legal currency OF the country there IL no
justice or proprety In allowing him to discharge
his obligation by paying In currency OF less IN.
trnsic value. Whether the Congress OF the United
States has legalized q substituted currency, or
whether 10 be competent for II 70 make legal tender
Of any other currency than gold or silver, ques
tons that do not affect and are apart rom the ob-
cation OF the contract and although Congress has
declared the Treasury notes issued by OF the
act OF February IS 1so2, and OF subsequent acts
be lawful money and q legal tender In payment OF
all private debts within the United States IL not
TO be supposed IL was intended to impair and vir
tuay nullify all previous special contracts stipu