Mr. Roelker, of counsel for the defendant in error- in this case, moved the court to dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction : the case being thus:

The Judiciary Act of 1789 (§ 25) provides that this court may review the judgment of the highest court of a State in eases “ where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the Constitution, or of a . . statute of . . the United States, and the decision is against the title, right,.privilege, or exemption specially set up or claimed by either party under such clause of the said Constitution, statute,” &c. And (he Constitution aforesaid, by Article I, section 8, clause 5, gives power to Congress to establish “ uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies.” By Articles 5,9, and 10, of certain amendments to the same, it declares that “ no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation;” and makes some other provisions not specially important to be mentioned.* With these constitutional provisions in force, Congress, on the 25th of February, 1862, passed an act authorizing the issue of United States notes, which notes the act declared should be “ lawful mcmey and a legal tender in paymmt of all debts, public and private,” except duties on imports, and interest on the Federal debt.

In this state of things, as appeared from a case stated for the Supreme Court of New York, Meyer, plaintiff in that case, desiring to pay a bond and mortgage which he had assumed to pay, and which were held by Roosevelt, defendant in it, as original mortgagee, tendered to the latter the sum of $8171, being the full amount of principal and interest, in notes of the United States, issued under the act of Congress, aforesaid.. Roosevelt refused to receive the same as legal tender, and claimed that the repayment should be made in gold coin of the United States. The case stated for the Supreme Court of New York went on as follows:

“ It was thereupon agreed by and between the said parties that the defendant should receive, and he accordingly did receive, the said sum of $8170 in said notes of the United States, conditionally, and that the question whether the said notes of the United States are and were a legal tender in payment of said mortgage debt and interest should be submitted to a court hav ing jurisdiction.

“ The question submitted to the Supreme Court of New YoiTt upon this case is:

“ Were the said notes of the United States a legal tender on the part of the plaintiff ?

“ If the court shall decide this question in the affirmative, then judgment is to be rendered for plaintiff, ordering the defendant to deliver up said bond and mortgage to be cancelled, and to acknowledge satisfaction thereof, and discharge the same of record.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress