Railroad Company v. Johnson
82 U.S. 195 (1872)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Railroad Company v. Johnson, 82 U.S. 15 Wall. 195 195 (1872)

Railroad Company v. Johnson

82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 195

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT

Syllabus

The constitutionality of the Acts of Congress of February 25, 1862, and of subsequent acts in addition thereto, making certain notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of debts, reaffirmed.

Johnson sued the Norwich and Worcester Railroad Company on certain coupons for interest attached to bonds, made by the said company A.D. 1860. When the coupons fell due, the amount was tendered in the legal tender notes of the United States, issued under the act of Congress of February 25, 1862, and the several acts in addition thereto, and they were refused. The state court rendered judgment that this tender was not good, and that the plaintiff should receive the amount with interest in the gold and silver coin of the United States. This writ of error was brought to reverse that judgment.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

In accordance with the principles settled by this Court in the cases of Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis, [Footnote 1] which were affirmed in Dooley v. Smith, [Footnote 2] the tender was a good and valid one, and the judgment for coin is erroneous, and must be reversed.

Page 82 U. S. 196

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut be, and the same is hereby,

Reversed and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

[Footnote 1]

79 U. S. 12 Wall. 457.

[Footnote 2]

80 U. S. 13 Wall. 604.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, dissenting:

I think it my duty to express my dissent from the judgment just announced, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court in Hepburn v. Griswold,* and in the dissenting opinions in Knox v. Lee, and Parker v. Davis.

My brothers CLIFFORD and FIELD concur in this dissent.

* 75 U. S. 8 Wall. 603.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.