ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

N. Y. Court of Appeals.

THE METROPOLITAN BANK and THE

SHOE AND LEATHER BANK,

[blocks in formation]

STATEMENT OF CASE.

The above defendant is, and has for several years past, been the Superintendent of the Banking Department of this State. The above plaintiffs, the Metropolitan Bank and the Shoe and Leather Bank, are corporations, or bodies corporate, formed for the purpose of transacting the general business of banking in this State, under the general banking law thereof, and each located and doing business in the city of New York. The certificate of association for the purpose aforesaid, of the plaintiff, the Metropolitan Bank, was duly filed under said general banking law, in the office of the Superintendent of the Banking Department, on the 10th day of April, 1851, and the certificate of the plaintiff, the Shoe and Leather Bank, was filed in the same office, on the 30th day of December, 1852. On said 10th day of April, 1851, the plaintiff, the Metropolitan Bank deposited in the office of the said Superintendent, the sum of one hundred thousand dollars in the public stocks of this State, or of the United States, and on 25th December, 1852, the plain

tiff, the Shoe and Leather Bank, deposited in said office, the same sum of one hundred thousand dollars, in the public stocks of this State, or of the United States, and each of said plaintiff's fully complied with all the provisions of the law relative to making such deposit with said Superintendent, and upon such deposit being made, the Superintendent issued to each of the above plaintiffs, an equal amount of circulating notes of dif ferent denominations, registered and countersigned in the office of the said Superintendent. That notes so issued, countersigned and registered, in the office of the said Superintendent, have been issued and circulated by these plaintiffs, and a large amount thereof is now in circulation, all of said notes being made payable on demand without interest.

On the 26th day of March, 1864, during the usual hours of business, between the hours of ten and three o'clock, at the places where such notes were made payable, in the city of New York, one D. Valentine then being the owner and holder of one bill or note above described, issued by each of the above plaintiffs, and each of said notes being of the denomination of ten dollars, and one of them issued by the plaintiff, the Metropolitan Bank, and one by the plaintiff, the Shoe and Leather Bank, presented the note so issued by the Shoe and Leather Bank, to the said bank, and also presented the note so issued by the Metropolitan Bank, to such bank, and demanded from each of said plaintiffs that it should redeem the bill so issued by it and demanded that such redemption should be, and payment be made in the gold or silver coin of the United States of America. That each of said plaintiffs refused to pay or redeem the note so issued by it, in gold or silver coin of the United States, but each tendered said Valentine a note of the denomination of ten dollars, issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the credit of the United States, under and by virtue of the act of Congress of the United States, entitled "An act to authorize the issue of United States notes and for the redemption or funding thereof, and for funding the floating debt of the United States," approved February 25th, 1862, as and for a legal redemption of the circulating notes respectively issued by each of the above plaintiffs, and then held and presented by Valentine. That he, said Valentine, refused to accept the said notes so tendered him

by plaintiffs as a legal redemption of the circulating notes so issued by plaintiffs and held by Valentine, and he therefore on the same day caused each of said notes to be, and each of them was duly protested under his seal of office, in the usual manner, by David W. Price, a notary public duly admitted and sworn, and dwelling in the city of New York, and each of such protests contained a statement that the demand of payment was that it should be made in the gold or silver coin of the United States, and contained the further statement that such demand was refused, but an offer and tender was made of payment in United States treasury notes, known as legal tender notes. That the said notes so protested, together with the protest thereof, were received and filed in the office of the Superintendent of the Banking Department, on the first day of April, 1863. That the above defendant, as Superintendent as aforesaid, upon the receipt and filing of the said notes and protests in his office, did forthwith give notice in writing to each of the makers of the said notes, being these plaintiffs, to pay the same. Plaintiffs are therefore apprehensive that said defendant will, upon an omission by plaintiffs, or either of them, for fifteen days after the receipt of said notice, to pay the said notes or either of them in gold or silver coin of the United States of America, give notice in the state-paper, that all the circulating notes issued by these plaintiffs, or by the one who shall fail to pay as aforesaid, will be redeemed out of the stocks or trust funds in the hands of said Superintendant, belonging to these plaintiffs, or to the one who, as aforesaid, should omit to pay in the said gold or silver coin; and that in order to redeem such notes, the said Superintendent will proceed to sell the said stocks or trust funds now in his hands and belonging to the above plaintiffs; and that he will take such proceedings on the ground that plaintiffs have failed, upon lawful demand to redeem their circulating notes in the lawful money of the United States. The plaintiffs and defendant have therefore agreed upon the foregoing case, and upon the same, the parties to this controversy, submit to the court the questions:

Whether the aforesaid act of Congress, approved February 25, 1862, is constitutional and valid, and also, whether the refusal of the plaintiffs to redeem their said notes so issued by them,

upon demand, in the gold or silver coin of the United States, and their offer to redeem their said notes in the notes of equal denominations issued as aforesaid, by authority of Congress, was a failure or refusal to redeem their notes in the lawful money of the United States.

If the court be of the opinion that the said act is constitutional, and that plaintiffs offered to redeem their notes in the lawful money of the United States, then judgment is to be entered restraining the defendant, as Superintendent, from taking any further steps towards redeeming any of the notes of plaintiffs, in cases where plaintiffs have offered to redeem in the legal tender notes of the United States; and that he be restrained from taking any steps towards the sale of the stocks or trust funds in his hands belonging to these plaintiffs, upon facts similar to the foregoing. But if on the contrary, the court be of the opinion, that the said act of Congress is unconstitutional, and that a refusal to redeem in the gold or silver coin of the United States, is a refusal to redeem in the lawful money of the United States, then a judgment is to be entered dismissing the complaint of the plaintiffs.

And the parties herein mutually pray for the judgment of this court herein.

W. A. KISSAN, Cashier.

GEO. J. SENEY, Cashier.
H. H. VAN DYCK, Supt., &c.

Upon the foregoing statement, which was agreed upon by the respective parties to this action, an argument was had before the Supreme Court, at General Term, in the Third District, and judgment rendered in favour of the plaintiffs, decreeing that the act of Congress mentioned and described in this case, approved February 25th, 1862, is constitutional and valid; that a tender made in treasury notes issued by virtue, and in pursuance of said act, is a good and legal tender for all debts mentioned therein; that the tender made by the plaintiffs to redeem their circulating notes, was a tender and offer to redeem their said. notes in the lawful money of the United States, and enjoining the defendant from taking any further steps towards redeeming any of the circulating notes issued by the above plaintiffs,

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »