Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1869-04-19
consr ne D iS5 's or tho 3:o on q 70 Enforce
acknowledgements May BIO Extended
for That Description Of Money.

Frederick Bronson, executor, vs..
Peter Rodes, is In appeal from the
Judgment Of the Court Of Appeals OF
the State of New York, holding that a
tender of Treasury notes for the salts
faction Of u mortgage made in 1851, by
its terms to be satisfied in gold and
silver coin, was sufficient. The tender
was made in January, 1865, when a
dollar in coin was equal to two dollars
and twenty-five cents in legal tender
notes, and the tender being refused,
action was commenced to compel the
cancellation Of the mortgage. The
Supreme Court of the State subse-
~quently adjudged the mortgage paid,
/ and required It to be satisfied by rec
ord, holding the tender to have been
sufficient. Tho Court of Appeals
affirmed that judgment, and the affirm
ance is here for review.
The Chief Justice delivered the
opinion of the Court, holding that it
is the duty Of Courts of Justice to
enforce contracts according to the in
tent Of parties to them and in this
case it is held that it is clear that tho
intent Of the parties was that payment
should be made in coin. There were
two descriptions Of money in use at
the time the tender In this case was
made, both authorized By law, aud
both made legal tender. The general
denomination Of both descriptions was
dollars, but they were essentially un-
like in nature. Tho coined dollar was
a piece of gold or silver of a certain
degree of purity and weight. The
note dollar was q promise to pay a
coined dollar, but not on demand or Mt
any fixed time /; nor was it convertible
into a coined dollar. II was impossi-
BILE, in tho nature of things, that these
two dollars should be the equivalent OF
each other, nor did the Currency Act
purport to make them o
There were then two descriptions OF
currency issued by the same govern
ment, and contracts to pay either were
equally sanctioned by law. No ques-
ton can be made as to the fact. Doubt
concerning it can only spriug from: that
confusion of ideas which always attends
the introduction Of varying and unccr-
tain measures Of value into circulation
rs money. In the absence of any spe-
cifc contract for the payment OF coin,
lecal-tender notes may Ue a sufficient
tender but it is clear to the Court that
express contracts for the payment OF
coined dollars eau only bs satisfied by
the payment Of coined dollars. They
are not debts which may be satisfied by
the tender Of treasury notes. As to the
judgments to be entered on contract for
the payment Of coin, it is said The diff
iculty arises in the supposition that
damages can be assessed in only Que
description Of money, but where there
are two kinds Of currency provided BY
law It is necessary, in order to avoid
ambiguity and prevent n failure Of JUS
tice, to render judgment for coined
money. Where the contract provides
| for payment in coined money, whore no
specified description Of money is made,
judgments may be entered generally
without such specification ; Judgment
below reversed. ".1" i~ iaglL lsF
Mr.. Justice Miller dissented, holding
that although it was the intention OF
the parties that gold should be paid, it
was only so because gold was then the
currency of the Government, the claw
full money of the United States men
toned in the contract. There was
nothing in the contract to make II differ
from any other contract payable in dol
lars.
Where Treasury notes became lawful
money of the United States, their ten
der was sufficient to discharge the con-
tract, and within its terms and within
the understanding and intention of tho
parties. ar7h s,3
This decision in no way affects The
egal tender cases argued by Mr.. Potter
and the Attorney General ut tho pre-.
sent term Of the Ooutt, although argued
at the time Of the argument of those
cases,