Case Name: Shollenberger versus Brinton; Mervine versus Sailor et al.; Davis et al. versus Burton et al.; Kroener versus Colhoun; Sandford et al. versus Hays; Graham versus Marshall et al.; Laughlin et al. versus Harvey
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1866
Citations: 52 Pa. 9
Docket Number: 
Parties: Shollenberger versus Brinton. Mervine versus Sailor et al. Davis et al. versus Burton et al. Kroener versus Colhoun. Sandford et al. versus Hays. Graham versus Marshall et al. Laughlin et al. versus Harvey.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 9–10

Head Matter:
Shollenberger versus Brinton. Mervine versus Sailor et al. Davis et al. versus Burton et al. Kroener versus Colhoun. Sandford et al. versus Hays. Graham versus Marshall et al. Laughlin et al. versus Harvey.
1. Congress has constitutional power to issue treasury notes of the United States and make them lawful money and a legal tender for the payment of debts. ;
2. The Act of Congress, of February 25th 1862, authorizing the issue of such notes, is constitutional.
3. The principal sum which redeems a ground-rent, is a debt within the meaning of the act.
4. A ground-rent, payable in “ * * * dollars, lawful silver money of the United States of America,” is redeemable by such notes. Shollenberger v. Brinton.
5. So the half-yearly instalment of a ground-rent, payable in “ * * dollars, lawful silver money of the United States, each dollar weighing 16 pwt. 6 gr. at least.” Mervine v. Sailor.
6. So a ground-rent payable in “ lawful money.” Davis v. Burton.
7. So a ground-rent payable in “ lawful money of the United States.” Kroener v. Oolhoun.
8. So a certificate of deposit of “ gold, payable * * * in like funds with interest.” Sandford v. Hays.
9. So a note for a sum of money marked in margin “ $14,145 specie,” which by bankers’ rules meant gold or silver coin. Graham v. Marshall.
10. So a note for “ * * * dollars in gold.” Laughlin v. Harvey.
11. Where the errors assigned are not sustained by a majority of the Supreme Court, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Opinion:
The principal question in all these cases being the effect of the Acts of Congress making treasury notes a legal tender in payment of debts, they were considered and decided together.