Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

75 U.S. 444

Bronson v. Kimpton

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 1, 1869

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1869-12

Kimpton filed a bill against Bronson in one of the State courts of New York to compel satisfaction of a mortgage executed by him to Bronson on the ground that it had been ■paid. The mortgage was given to secure a bond for the payment of a certain sum in gold and . silver coin, lawful money of the United States. The payment relied on was a tender of United States notes equal in nominal amount to the sum due on the bond and mortgage.

1 counsel of record

Relies on Blanchard v. Putnam

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · 8–0 · Decided 1869-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1903

1018691870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The eases of Bronson v. Rodes and Butler v. Horwitz (7 Wallace, 229 and 258) affirmed.

¶2Appeal from the Court of Appeals of New York.

¶3Kimpton filed a bill against Bronson in one of the State courts of New York to compel satisfaction of a mortgage executed by him to Bronson on the ground that it had been ■paid. The mortgage was given to secure a bond for the payment of a certain sum in gold and . silver coin, lawful money of the United States. The payment relied on was a tender of United States notes equal in nominal amount to the sum due on the bond and mortgage. The Supreme Court of New York held the tender sufficient, and adjudged satisfaction ; and this judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and was now here for review.

¶4Mr. J. A. Townsend

¶5(by whom the case of Bronson v. *445Rodes* had been elaborately and ably argued at the last term) now stated for the plaintiff in error that, as was obvious, there was no essential difference between this case and that, or Butler v. Horwitz,which had been adjudged at the same time, and he relied upon these two decisions as conclusive of the case.

¶8The CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9delivered thé judgment of this court to the effect that the questions being no other than those already fully considered and determined in the cases referred to by the counsel, this ease was necessarily

¶10Reversed, and would be remanded for

¶11FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

/75/us/444 · .json · Public domain