The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-09-15
Contracts Payable in Gold.
Manufacturing Jewelsr.

isl interest in knowing something about
what the courts have decided, and in
particular as to the contracts payable in
gold, silver or bullion. Pre-eminently
the leading case on the subject Is that OF
Bronson VS.. Rodes decided by the Sn-
preme Court of the United states in 1863.
Before that time the state courts of last
resort had taken different views OF the
validity of this class of contracts under
the national leesl tender act, the
most OF them holding that they
could not be specifically enforced. Bat
the Supreme Court of the United States
decided, in the above case, that bond
given TO secure the repayment OF loan,
"iu geld and silver coin," lawful money
Of the United States, with interest, also
in coin, was in legal import, precisely
what 1t was in the understanding OF the
parties, valid obligation TO be satisfied
by tender of actua payment according
to its terms, aud not by an offer OF
mere nominal payment; and that when
contracts made payable in coin are sued
upon, judgments may be entered for
coined dollars and parts of dollars, and
when contracts have been made payabls
In dollars generally, without specifying in
what description of currency payment Ia
| to be made, judgments may be entered
| generally without such specification.
The judicial reasoning upon which
| this decision was based was that payment
| Of money is delivery by the debtor to the
creditor of the amount due, and that a
| contract to pay certain number of
| dollars In GOLD or silver coin is, there
| fore, in the eyes OF the law nothing else
than an agreement to deliver a certain
weight O. standard gold or silver TO be
ascertained by a count of coins, ~'each of
W hitch is certified to contain q definite
proportion OF that weight, it not being
| dtsttnguishaDle in principle from a con-
tract to deliver an equal weigh Of bullion
| OF equal fneness, but distinguishable in
| circumstance by the fact that the
| sufficiency of the amount to be tenders ed
| In payment must be ascertained in the
case of bullion by assays and the scales.
while in the case of coin II may be ascer-
tanned by count. In other words, as the
court said in Butler VS.. Horwitz, decided
| to pay q certain sum in gold and silver
coin is, in substance and legal effect,
contract to deliver certain weight
of gold aud silver of certain fneness
to be ascertained by count"
| Not to be overlooked in this connec-
tion but not overruling the foregoing
doctrine as is sometimes enormously
| stated are the famous illegal Tender
| Cases" decided in 1871 which reversed
decision of 1870 wherein it has been de-
cided that The legal tender acts did not
apply to contracts made before their pas
sage. General Grant Ii Is doubly inter
esting just now to recall was accused by
some of having in this interval "pacKed"
the bench by appointing as ha had sn OPP
portuniy to do two justices who would
take a different view from that expressed
in the 1870 decision. However that may
be, the reconstructed court held the acts
applied to prior contracts.
| But 1t would take too long to review
| all the decisions touching on this su bject.
| Only few months ago, in the oaos o.:
Woodruff VS.. State Of Mississippi, where
| the Supreme Court of the United States
said that there is more thnn one descrip-
| tion of money of the United States, Mr..
! Justice Field took occasion, in a concur
ring opinion, to state that, in his judg-
| ment, no transaction of commerce or
business, or obligation for the payment OF
| money that Is not immoral in its cbnrac-
ter, and which is not, In it's manifest pur-
pose detrimental to the peace, good or
der, and general interest OF society can
be declared or held to be invalid because
enforced or made payable in gold coin
or currency when that is established or
recognized by the government, and that
any acts hy state authority impairing or
lessening the validity or negotiaoility OF
obligations thus made payable In gold
coin are violative OF the laws aud consti.
tuition OF the United States.
Thus II will be seen, especially ss the
tate courts now seem quite disposed to
follow in line with these decisions where
they have jurisdiction, that under the
law as 1t exists today, there Is no
doubt put otherwise valid contracts re-
cu'riug payment in specie cen be
enforced. Some good lawyers also in
sjst. though there Is some difference OF
opinion on this point, lnat 1t is beyond
the power Of Congress to snnul q "gold
contract"
SO long as IL is the avowcd policy OF tho
government to maintain at an equality
all OF the various kinds OF money-gold,
silver and legal tender notes, the appel
late branch OF the Supreme Court OF New
YORK recently declared, blanek vs.. .sadlier,
that bee use a mortgage debt was pay
abls In golc coin OF the present stand
ard, II imposed no additional burden on
the debtor.