The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1869-02-25
The Validity Of Gold Contracts.

The Supreme Court of the United States has
created some surprise by decision that con
tracts to pay specifically In gold coin, are valid
and may be enforced, the legal tender act to
the contrary, notwithstanding. From this
opinion Judge Miller only dissents. The fol-
lowing is the text Of the decision
Frederick Bronson, executor, v. Peter Kodes
in an appeal from the judgment Of the Court
of Appeals in the State Of New York, holding
that tender Of Treasury notes for the salts
faction Of a mortgage made In 1851 by its terms
to be satisfied in gold and silver coin was suff-
Gent. The tender was made in January, 1865,
when dollar In coin was equal to two dollars
and twenty cents III legal tender notes, and
the tender being refused, action was commenc-
ed to compel the cancellation Of the mortgage
The Supreme Court Of the State subsequently
adjudged the mortgage paid and required 1t
to be satisfied by record, holding the tender to
be have been sufficient. The Court Of Appeals
affirmed that Judgment, and the attirmance 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 ease 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 denomination of
both descriptions was dollars, but they were
| essentially unlike in nature. The coined dollar
was piece OF gold or silver, OF gold of a GER
tain degree OF purity and weight, the note dol
lar was promise TO pay coined dollar but
not on demand or NJ any fixed time. Nor was
it convertible into coined dollar. 1t was i'm
possible, in the nature Of things, that these two
dollars should be the equivalent of each other,
nor CID the currency purport to make them SO.
There were then two descriptions of currency,
issued by the same Government and contracts
to pay either were equally sanctioned by law
No question can be made as to the fact. Doubt
concerning 1t can only spring from that.confu-
sion OF ideas which always attends the intro
/ duction of vague and uncertain measures of
value into circulation as money. In the alb
sence OF any specific contract for the payment
OF coin, legal tender notes may be sufficient
tender, but it Is clear to the Court that express
contracts for payment Of coined dollars can
only be satisfied by the payment of coined dol
lars They are not debts which may be salts
fed by the tender Of treasury notes
AS to the judgments to be entered on con-
tract for the payment OF con it is said the diff
Guilty arises in the supposition that damages
can be assessed in only one description of
money, bu: where there are two kinds of cur
rency provided by law, 1t is necessary, in or
der TO avoid ambiguity and prevent a failure
OF justice, to render judgment for coined mon
ey, where the contract provides for payment in
coined money. Where no specified descrip-
ton OF money is made, judgment may be en-
tered generally without specification Judg-
ment below reversed.