The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1869-04-21

The following is the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States reversing
the decision of the State Court of New York,
adjudging that when contract calls for coin,
ii is not satisfied by the payment of Legal
Tender note:
Frederick Bronson, executor, ETC., VS..
Peter Rodes.-This is an appeal from a judg-
ment of the Court of Appeals of the State of
New York holding that tender of Treasury
notes for the satisfaction of 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 81 in coin
was equal to 81 % in legal tender notes, and,
the tender being refused, action was COM
menced to compel the cancellation of the
mortgage. The Supreme Court of the State
subsequently adjudged the mortgage paid,
and required it to be satisfied of record, hold
ing the tender to have been sufficient The
Court of Appeals affirm that judgement
and the affirmance 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 intent of the parties to them; and in this
case it is held that it is clear that the 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, and
both made legal tender The general demo
mination of both descriptions was dollars,
but they were essentially unlike III nature
The coined dollar was piece of gold or sill
yer of a certain degree of purity and weight
Inc note dollar was promise to pay a
coined dollar but not on demand, nor at
any fixed time, nor was it convertible into
coined dollar 1t was impossible in the
nature of things, that these two dollars
should be equivalents of each other nor did
the Currency Act purport to make them SO.
There were then two descriptions of curren-
cy issued by the same Government, and con-
tracts to pay either were equally sanctioned
by law. No question can be made as to this
fact; doubt concerning it can only spring
from that confusion of ideas which always
attends the introduction of varying and nm
certain measures of value into circulation as
money. In the absence of any specific con-
troll, for the payment of coin legal tender
notes may be sufficient tender, but it is clear
TO the Court that express contracts for the
payments of coined dollars can only be salts
ned by the payment of coined dollars. They
are not debts which may be satisfied by the
tender OF treasury notes. As TO the Judge
ments to be entered on contracts for the pay
ment of coin, it is said, the difficulty arises
in the supposition that damages can be as
sessed in only one description of money;
but where there aretwo kinds of currency pro- !
vided by law it is necessary, in order to avoid |
ambiguity and prevent failure of justice, |
to render judgement for coined money where |
the contract provides for payment in coined |
money. Where no specified description of /
money is made, judgements may be re-enter- |
ed generally without such specification. |
Judgement below reversed.
Justice Miller dissented, holding that al |
though 1t was the intention of the parties |
that gold should be paid, it was only so be- /
cause gold was then the currency of the Gov
eminent, the lawful money of the United
States, mentioned in the contract. There
was nothing in the contract to make it differ
from any other ordinary contract payable in
dollars. When treasury notes became law
full money of the United States, their tender
was sufficient TO discharge the contract, and
within its terms and within the understand
ing and intention of the parties. This deci-
sion in no way effects the legal tender cases
argued by Potter and the Attorney General
1t the present term of the Court, although
at the time of the argument of those
cases