Norman v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | POUND |
| Citation | 265 N.Y. 37,191 N.E. 726 |
| Decision Date | 03 July 1934 |
| Parties | NORMAN v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. |
265 N.Y. 37
191 N.E. 726
NORMAN
v.
BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.
Court of Appeals of New York.
July 3, 1934.
Action by Norman C. Norman against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. Judgment of Special Term for plaintiff in an amount less than that demanded in the complaint was affirmed by the Appellate Division (241 App. Div. 803, 270 N. Y. S. 928), and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
O'BRIEN, J., dissenting.
[191 N.E. 727]
[265 N.Y. 38]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
Emanuel Redfield and Dalton Dwyer, both of New York City, for appellant.
Frederick H. Wood, Carl A. de Gersdorff, H. F. McGuire, and N. H. Josephs, all of New York City, for respondent.
[265 N.Y. 39]POUND, Chief Judge.
The point for decision in this case depends upon the constitutionality of the Joint Resolution of Congress known as Public Resolution No. 10 of the Seventy-Third Congress, entitled ‘A joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States,’ approved June 5, 1933 (31 USCA § 463, Mason's U. S. Code, Title 31, ch. 8, § 430-4, 48 Stat. 113, § 1) as related to the standard gold clause contained in a corporate bond issued by defendant for payment of principal and interest ‘in gold coin of the United States of America of or equal to the standard of weight and fineness existing on February 1, 1930.’
The action is on a bond coupon calling for payment of $22.50. The complaint demands payment in gold, or its [265 N.Y. 40]equivalent which was alleged to be $38.10. Judgment was directed for $22.50, called for on the face of the coupon.
Defendant interposed as a defense Public Resolution No. 10, above cited, by which it was authorized and required to discharge the principal and interest of such bond and coupon in any coin or currency of the United States which at the time was legal tender for public and private debts and not otherwise. The court refused to strike out such defense.
In view of the enormous property value at stake and of the possibility that Congress may stamp as legal tender such a vast quantity of paper money as portentially to destroy the value of all past promises to pay in the future, the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the question will be fraught with the gravest results. It is becoming that we should express our views on the question, even though the ultimate decision rests with the court of last resort on questions arising under the Federal Constitution.
No controlling authority may be found for the rule that the money power of Congress may make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. Baltimore Co United States v. Bankers Trust Co, Nos. 270
...upon appeal. The Court of Appeals of the state considered the federal question and Page 294 decided that the Joint Resolution was valid. 265 N.Y. 37, 191 N.E. 726, 62 A.L.R. 1523. This Court granted a writ of certiorari October 8, 1934, 293 U.S. 546, 55 S.Ct. 103, 79 L.Ed. —-. In Nos. 471 a......
-
Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
...contracts, we have said, may be subject to the money regulation [266 N.Y. 97]intrusted to Congress. Norman v. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., 265 N. Y. 37, 191 N. E. 726. The Soviets, in order to give to their money an exchange value, created the chervonetz bank notes, taking the chervonetz as a ......
-
Merchants Serv. Corp. v. Libby, Gen. No. 41514.
...that Congress in the exercise of its legitimate powers may impair the obligations of contracts. In Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 265 N.Y. 37, 191 N.E. 726,92 A.L.R. 1523, which involved the right of a bondholder to require payment in the gold coin specified in his bond or its then p......
-
People v. New York Title & Mortgage Co.
...policy are explained in the opinion in the other case. At the times when the New York Title & Mortgage Company reimbursed itself for the [191 N.E. 726]interest payments [265 N.Y. 36]during the years 1931 and 1932, taxes were in arrears and unpaid upon the mortgaged premises. In fact, penalt......
-
Norman v. Baltimore Co United States v. Bankers Trust Co, Nos. 270
...upon appeal. The Court of Appeals of the state considered the federal question and Page 294 decided that the Joint Resolution was valid. 265 N.Y. 37, 191 N.E. 726, 62 A.L.R. 1523. This Court granted a writ of certiorari October 8, 1934, 293 U.S. 546, 55 S.Ct. 103, 79 L.Ed. —-. In Nos. 471 a......
-
Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
...contracts, we have said, may be subject to the money regulation [266 N.Y. 97]intrusted to Congress. Norman v. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., 265 N. Y. 37, 191 N. E. 726. The Soviets, in order to give to their money an exchange value, created the chervonetz bank notes, taking the chervonetz as a ......
-
Merchants Serv. Corp. v. Libby, Gen. No. 41514.
...that Congress in the exercise of its legitimate powers may impair the obligations of contracts. In Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 265 N.Y. 37, 191 N.E. 726,92 A.L.R. 1523, which involved the right of a bondholder to require payment in the gold coin specified in his bond or its then p......
-
People v. New York Title & Mortgage Co.
...policy are explained in the opinion in the other case. At the times when the New York Title & Mortgage Company reimbursed itself for the [191 N.E. 726]interest payments [265 N.Y. 36]during the years 1931 and 1932, taxes were in arrears and unpaid upon the mortgaged premises. In fact, penalt......