The national Republican., 1869-03-03


@1sh cts. for G Yellow.
ANOTHER GOLD CASE DEcIpED.-In the
United States Supreme Court on Monday,
Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion Of
the court In case No. 20, Thomas G. Butler
against Benjamin T. Horwitz, error to the
Court of Common Pleas for the State OF
Maryland. The following is q careful re-
port Of the opinion. Chief Justice Chase
saidi The principles which determined the
case Of Bronson VS.. Rodes will govern our
Judgment In this case. The record shows a
suit for breach Of the covenant for payment
OF rent In lease Of certain premises In the
| city Of Baltimore, made in 1901 for 90 years,
renewable forever, upon an annual rent of
Els, current money Of Maryland, payable In
English golden guineas, weighing tive penny
weights sixteen grains, at thlrty-flve shlllings
each, and this gold and silver at then present
weight and rate established by act OF Assem-
| bly,. The obvious intent Of the contract was
to secure payment of q certain rent in gold
and silver, and thereby avoid the fluctuations
| to which the currency Of the country, In the
days which preceded and followed the cstab-
| lishment Of our independence, had been sub
ject, and also all future fluctuations incident
to arbitrary or uncertain measures Of value,
whether introduced by law or usage. ltwas
argued in the court below that the rent due
upon the lease, reduced TO current gold and
silver coin, was, on the 1st Of January, 1866,
| $40, and Judgment was rendered on the 27th
Of juno, 1886, for s59.17. This Judgment
was rendered as the legal result of two prop
ositions-flrst, that the covenant In the lease
| required the delivery of a certain amount Of
gold and silver In payment Of rent, and Sec
| ond, that damages for non-performance
must be assessed in the legal-endcr currency.
| The first Of these propositions is, in our
lad - 1t.
| erroneous. II Is not necessary to go at
length into the grounds Of this conclusion;
we will only state briefly the general propo-
sltion on which 1t rests, most of which have
been stated more fully in Bronson VS.. Rodes.
contract to pay certain sum In gold
and silver is, In substance and legal effect, a
contract to deliver certain weight of gold
and silver of q certain 1neness to be ascer-
tained by court. Damages for non-perform-
ance Of such contract may be recovered at
law as for non-performance of contract TO
| deliver bullion or any other commodity, but
whether the contract be for delivery or pay
ment OF coin or bullion, or other property,
damages for on-performance must be as
sessed In lawful money; that Is to say, In
money declared to be legal tender In payment
bya law made iu pursuance of the Constitu-
tion OF the United States.
II was not necessary In the case of Bronson
q
the question whether the acts making United
States notes legal tender arc warranted by
the Constitution. We express no opinion OH
that point, but assume, for the present, the
constitutionality of those acts. Proceeding
upon this assumption, we find two descrip.
tions OF lawful money In use under acts OF
Congress, In either of which damages for
non-performance Of contracts, whether made
before or since the passage of the currency
| aagRRaat Ia.
sence Of any different understanding OF
agreement between parties, but the obvious
intent In contracts for payment In coin
to guard against fluctuations In the medium
OF payment warrants the Inference that It
was the understanding Of the parties tina,
such contracts should be satisfied, whether
before or after the judgment, only by tender
of coin, while the absence of any express
stipulation as to description In contracts fol
payment Of money, generally warrants the
opposite inference Of an understanding be
tween parties that such contracts may bt
satisfied before or after judgment, by the
tender fany lawful money.
The Inference as to contracts made prior
to the passage of the acts making United
States notes legal tender Is strengthened by
the consideration that those acts not only do
not prohibit, but by strong implication sane
tion contracts, since their passage, for thu
payment or delivery of coin, and conse.
quently taken In connection with the pro
vision Of the act Of 1792 concerning money o
: account, require the damages upon sucl
contracts to be assessed in coin, and judg
ment rendered accordingly, leaving the as
, sessment of damages for breach Of othe
contracts to be made and judgment rem
dered In lawful money.
II would be unreasonable to suppose thai
the Legislature intended different rule a
TO contracts prior to the enactment OF tn
currency laws from that sanctioned by then
1 In respect to contracts since. We are o
the opinion, therefore, that assessments o
= damages, whether In coin or lawful money
seyerally, and judgments upon such assess
y ments, should be In conformity to the stipu
Q latlon of contracts In regard to the medium
:, of payment. 1t follows that In the case be
fore us the Judgment was enormously en-
tered. The damage should be assessed a
i the sum agreed to be due, with interest II
gold and silver coin, and Judgment for tina
. amount with costs. The Judgment Of tn,
Court of Common Pleas must, therefore, b.
reversed, and the cause remanded for fur
4 ther proceedings.
: Mr.. Justice Miller disscntcd for reason
! given by him In Bronson vs.. ROdes.