Court Opinion

ID: 2962326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:56:23.827162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:54.460846
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          January 3, 1994                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                          ____________________        No. 93-1872                                    JOHN W. DEVORE,                                AND VINNIE E. DEVORE,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                    FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF DOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]                                          ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            John W. Devore and Vinnie E. Devore on brief pro se.            ______________     ________________            Edward S.  MacColl and Thompson, McNaboe,  Ashley & Bull on  brief            __________________     _________________________________        for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  Having reviewed the record and the parties'                 __________            submissions, we find  that the district court  acted properly            in  dismissing appellants' complaint  for failure to  state a            claim  and in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment            on its  counterclaim.   The  appellants' central  claim--that            Federal  Reserve Notes are not  lawful currency and so cannot            be used  as legal  tender for  private debts--is  frivolous.1            We likewise find  their subsidiary allegations to  be without            merit,  substantially for the  reasons cited by  the district            court.                 The judgment is  affirmed.  Appellants' motion  for stay                 ________________________________________________________            and appellee's  renewed motion  for  summary disposition  are            _____________________________________________________________            each denied as moot.             ____________________                                            ____________________            1.  See,  e.g.,  Juilliard  v. Greenman,  110  U.S.  421, 448                ___   ____   _________     ________            (1884)  ("Congress  is  authorized  to  establish  a national            currency,  either in  coin  or  in paper,  and  to make  that            currency  lawful money  for  all  purposes,  as  regards  the            national government or private individuals"); Edgar v. Inland                                                          _____    ______            Steel  Co., 744  F.2d 1276,  1278  n.4 (7th  Cir. 1984)  (per            __________            curiam)  (rejecting argument that  "federal reserve notes are            not money"); Foret v. Wilson,  725 F.2d 254, 254-55 (5th Cir.                         _____    ______            1984)  (per curiam) (rejecting  argument that "only  gold and            silver  coin may be constituted legal tender"); United States                                                            _____________            v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400, 402-04 (10th Cir. 1979); United States               ____                                         _____________            v. Anderson,  584  F.2d 369,  374  (10th Cir.  1978);  United               ________                                            ______            States v. Schmitz,  542 F.2d 782, 785 (9th  Cir. 1976), cert.            ______    _______                                       _____            denied, 429  U.S. 1105  (1977); Milam  v. United  States, 524            ______                          _____     ______________            F.2d  629, 630  (9th  Cir.  1974); see  also  Howe v.  United                                               _________  ____     ______            States, 632 F. Supp. 700, 701 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 802 F.2d 440            ______                                    _____            (1st Cir. 1986) (table), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1066 (1987).                                      ____________