Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Juilliard v. Greenman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This articlerelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this article by addingsecondary or tertiary sources.
Find sources: "Juilliard v. Greenman" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR
(May 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

1884 United States Supreme Court case
Juilliard v. Greenman
Submitted January 22, 1884
Decided March 3, 1884
Full case nameJuilliard v. Greenman
Citations110U.S.421 (more)
4 S. Ct. 122; 28L. Ed. 204; 1884U.S. LEXIS 1712
Holding
The Legal Tender Acts are constitutional and apply in peacetime.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley · John M. Harlan
William B. Woods · Stanley Matthews
Horace Gray · Samuel Blatchford
Case opinions
MajorityGray, joined by Waite, Miller, Bradley, Harlan, Woods, Matthews, Blatchford
DissentField

Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), was aSupreme Court of the United States case in which issuance ofgreenbacks aslegal tender in peacetime was challenged.The Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1863 were upheld.

Augustus D. Juilliard sold and delivered 100 bales of cotton to Thomas S. Greenman[1] for $5,122.90. Greenman tendered $5,100 in United States legal tender notes and the rest in coin, but Juilliard would not accept the U.S. notes. The tendered notes were originally issued under an act of Congress passed on February 25, 1862, and March 3, 1863, during the Civil War. An act of May 31, 1878 provided to "forbid the further retirement of United States legal tender notes."

Decision

[edit]

In an 8–1 decision resting largely on prior court cases, particularly the jointly-decided casesKnox v. Lee (1871) andParker v. Davis (1871),[2] the power "of making the notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts" was interpreted as "included in the power to borrow money and to provide a national currency".

Dissenting opinion

[edit]

Justice Field dissented, challenging the court's interpretation of the terms to "borrow" and to "coin" money.

He explained that the term to borrow money was well settled in other instruments, such as municipal andcorporate bonds and privatecontracts. He contended that allowing the government to make their notes legal tender would interfere with third-party contractual obligations, as third parties would be compelled by law to accept notes instead ofcoin. He argued that a private corporate bond could not require anamusement park to accept the bond in exchange for entry. To find that the term to borrow money as written in theConstitution, according to him, would allow interference in third-party contracts and improve the value of the note, but it would deviate from the meaning of the term "to borrow money".

He asserted that the meaning of the terms "to coin money" was certain: "It is to mould metallic substances into forms convenient for circulation and to stamp them with the impress of the government." He argued that in the clause authorizing Congress "to provide for the punishment ofcounterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States," a distinction was clearly made between debt and coin.

He also cited many quotes by the founders against paper money, including the following byJames Madison: "The pretext for paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts, was cut off."

Finally, Justice Field wrote "For nearly three-quarters of a century after the adoption of the Constitution, and until the legislation during the recent civil war, no jurist and no statesman of any position in the country ever pretended that a power to impart the quality of legal tender to its notes was vested in the general government. There is no recorded word of even one in favor of its possessing the power. All conceded, as an axiom of constitutional law, that the power did not exist."

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^The full names of the parties are not mentioned in the opinion, but are noted in attorney filings made before the court. See, e.g.,Talbot, Thomas Hammond (1884).Augustus D. Juilliard vs. Thomas S. Greenman: Argument for the Defendant in Error. Cupples, Upham & Company. RetrievedApril 17, 2021.
  2. ^"Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. 457 (1870)".Justia Law. RetrievedDecember 31, 2022.

External links

[edit]
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Othertrademark cases
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Copyright Act of 1976
Othercopyright cases
Otherpatent cases
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Compact Clause of Section X
Commercial Revolution
(1607–1760)
1st Industrial Revolution
(1760–1840)
Civil War Era
(1840–1870)
2nd Industrial Revolution/
Gilded Age
(1870–1914)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juilliard_v._Greenman&oldid=1311207051"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp