« 이전계속 »
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. WAN 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, wherein the plaintiffs have tendered and offered to redeem their said notes in the said treasury notes, and also from taking any steps whatever towards the sale of the stocks or trust funds in his hands belonging to the plaintiffs, by reason of the notices of protest filed in his office and referred to in this case. From this judgment the defendant appealed.
MR. DoTY said: If the Court please, the case presented to the Court for consideration, is one which has been agreed upon under the provisions of the Code of Procedure, between the Metropolitan Bank and the Shoe and Leather Bank on one side, and Henry H. Van Dyck, as superintendent of the banking department of this State, on the other. It would be well to say, perhaps, that in the first district a mandamus had been issued to compel Mr. Van Dyck, as said superintendent, to proceed to sell the securities of certain other banks of this State not represented upon the record, and that pending the agreement and decision in those cases, this case was agreed upon. It perhaps presents the whole question at issue; and the mandamus cases have been suspended for the time being, awaiting the result herein. It appears from this case, that these institutions were chartered and doing business under the general banking law of this State; that they had issued their bills, having given the securities required by law; that the notes which they had issued as money were duly presented at their respective places of business for payment, and payment was refused; or payment was demanded in gold or silver coin, and they offered to redeem the same in legal teuder notes, which were refused. This case was not argued in the Court below, as I understand; nor was any written opinion given by the judges who