The New York herald., 1869-03-02
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
The Validity Of Coin C0ntrncts Rean1rmed-
The End Of the Russells- Majors Claim-The
Floyd Acceptances MISUNDERSTANDING
Opinion Of Justices Nelson and Clifford.
WASHINGTON, March /, 1862
Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion Of the
Supreme Court to-day in cause No. 70-Th0mas c.
Butler vs. Benjamin F. Horwitz-in error to the
Court Of Common Pleas for the State Of Maryland.
The following Is careful report Of the opinion:-
Chief Justice Chase said-The principles which de-
tsrmine the case OF Bronson vs.. Rodes will govern
cur Judgment IN this The record shows q suit
for breach Of the covenant for payment OF rent IN
lease OF certain premises to the city Of Baltimore,
made in 1891 for nnety-nne years. renewable
forever upon an annual rent of fifteen pounds cur
rent money OF Maryland, payable in English golden
gulneas weighing five pennyweishts and SIX grains,
al thlrty-flve shngS each, and ts gold and silver
at their present weglt and rate established by act
OF Assembly. The obvious ntelt OF the contract was
to secure payment OF certain rent in gold and sill
yer, ana thereby to avoid the fluctuations to which
the currency Of the country In the days which pre-
pendence had been subject, and also all future uc
tuatlons incident to the arbitrary uncertain
ures OF value, whether introduced by law usage.
1t was argued IN the court below that the rent due
upon the lease reduced to current gold and silver
coin, was, on the lst Of January 1866, forty dollars
and Judgment was rendered on the 25th or June
1865, for fifCynne dollars and seventeen cents. This
judgment rendered the legal result pro-
positions-trst, that the covenant IN the lease
CURED the delivery or a certain amount OF gold and
silver In payment OF rent, and second that damages
for non-performance must be assessed in the legal
tender currency. The first OF these propositions Is,
In our Judgment, correct; the second Is we THINK
erroneous. 1t is necessary to go al length into
the grounds Of TINS conclusion We viii only state
most Of which has been stated more fully in Bron-
son vs. Rodes. contract to pay certain
sum In gold and silver com is, in sub
stance and legal effect, contract to deliver
certain weight OF gold and silver Of certain iine-
performance OF contract may be recovered at law,
as for non-performance Of contract TO deliver bull
hon or other commodity; but whether the contract
property damages for non-periormance must be as
sessed IN lawful money-tnat Is to say, Ia money de-
In pursuance OF the constitution Of the United
States IL was not necessary in the case OF Bronson
vs.. Kodes, nor is 1t necessary now to decide the
question whether the acts making United states
notes legal tender are warranted by the constu-
for the present the consttutionalty OF those
acts Proceeding upon this assumption we find two
descriptions OF lawful money IN use under the acts
Of Congress, In either OF which damages for nom
performance or contracts, whether made before or
since passage OF the Currency acts may be pro-
perly assessed In the absence OF any different under
standing or agreement between parties But the
obvious intent contracts for payment In coin to
guard against fluctuations in the medium Of pay
ment warrants the inference nat 1t was the under
standing Of the parties that such contracts should
saused. whether before or after the Judgment only
stipulation as to description IN contracts Tor payment
OF money, generally warrants the opposite inference
Of an understanding between parties that such con-
the tender OF any lawful money. This inference as
to contracts made prior to the passage OF the acts
making United States notes legal tender is strength
ened by the consideration that those acts not only do
not prohibit, but by strong implication sanction
delivery OF coin; and consequently, taken in con.
nectlon with the provision OF the act OF 1872 con-
corning money OF account require the damages upon
m h1
rendered accordingly leaving the assessment OF
damages for breachf other contracts TO be made and
Judgment rendered In lawful money. Ii would be un-
reasonable to suppose that the Legislature Intended
different rule as TO contracts prior to the enactment
Of the Currency laws from that sanctioned by
them in respect to contracts since. We are OF the
opinion, therefore, that assessments OF damages,
whether In coin or lawful money, severally, that
judgments upon such assessments should be
In conformity TO the stipulation OF contracts In
regard TO the medium OF payment. 1t fol-
lows then. that in the case before us the Judgment
was enormously entered. The damages should be
assessed at the agreed TO be due with the inte
rest In gold and silver coin, and judgment for the
Common Pleas must therefore he reversed and the
cause renamed e for further proceedings.
Mr.. Justice Miller dissented, for reasons given by
him In BRONSON vs. Eodes.
The following decisions were also rendered in the
Supreme Court to-day
No. 2S-Pierce the United states, and two other
cases Involving the same uu estiunS. appealed from
the Court of Claims. Mr. Justice Milier delivered
the opinion OF the court in these cases. al rming
the decision Of the Court OF claims, rejecting the
claims founded on the Floyd acceptsnoes,
tary OF War cannot draw or accept
bill OF exchange, unless in cases where authority for
that pufpose Is conferred upon MN by statutes. "
IL ned that IN the present secretary Floyd had
such authority and the acceptances do not nere-
fore bind the, government MT. Justice Nelson for
sening opinion 10 the effect that Secretary Floyd
did possess the requisite statutory authority In yr-
tue OF provision OF the act OF Congress OF 1s2O,
"
may provide for supplies and the transportation OF
troops In the field and raise money or make con-
tracts for that purpose in the absence OF any appro-
priation by Congress. The acceptances In question
being given for tie purpose OF supplies and trans
portatlon 10 troops In the neld operating against the
Jtahs they are velid and the government respon.
sble. The amount Of these bills rendered worthless
hy the opinion OF the Court IL $6s0,400
No. ss.--The United states, appellants, vs. The
Schooner Diana ana dCargo.-Appeal from the District
Court OF the United states for the southern district
Of Florida.
Nr. Justice Field delivered the opinion Of the
with directions 70 enter decree condemnlng the
vessel and cargo as lawful prize OF war.
No. so..lohn ROLAND, appellant vs.. The United
states Of the Northern district OF California. Mr..
Justice Davies delivered the opinion OF the court
ans the ~ "a"se - Inc Src Court
OF the United States for the district OF California
pisscnting-Mr. Justice Field and Mr.. Justice
Miller.
No. sl.-willIam Sheets, appellant, vs. Henry n.
Selden, II. Woodruff and N. n. Ppme.--Appeal from
the Circuit Court OF the United States for the district
OF Indiana. Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion
OF the court Affirming the decrees OF said Circuit
Court in this cause, with COSTS
No. si.-Thc Agawam woollen Company, appel
liant vs. Eben u. Jordan.--Appeal from the Circuit
Court OF the United States for the district or Massa
chusetts Mr.. Justice ChfYord delivered the opinion
Court IN this cause with costs and interest
No. n2.--The board OF Supervisors Of Lee county,
Iowa. plaintln IN errer, vs., the United states ex.