United States v. Van Auken
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Citation | 96 U.S. 366,24 L.Ed. 852 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. VAN AUKEN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
CERTIFICATE of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Assistant-Attorney-General Smith for the United States.
Mr. George W. Lawton, contra.
The act of Congress of July 17, 1862, sect. 2 ), declares that 'no private corporation, banking association, firm, or individual shall make, issue, circulate, or pay out any note, check, memorandum, token, or other obligation, for a less sum than one dollar, intended to circulate as money, or to be received or used in lieu of lawful money of the United States,' and denounces as a penalty for the offence fine or imprisonment, or both.
Van Auken was indicted under this act for circulating the 'obligations' of the Bangor Furnace Company, a corporation created by and under the laws of the State of Michigan, which obligations are alleged to be in haec verba:——
'BANGOR, MICH., Aug. 15, 1874.
'The Bangor Furnace Company will pay the bearer, on demand, fifty cents, in goods, at their store, in Bangor, Mich.
(Signed) 'A. B. HOUGH, Pres.
'CHAS. D. RHODER, Treas.'
'Each of which said obligations was for a less sum than one dollar, and was intended by the said Aaron Van Auken to circulate as money, and to be received in lieu of lawful money of the United States, contrary,' &c.
Van Auken demurred to the indictment. The opinions of the judges of the Circuit Court were divided and opposed upon two questions, which were thereupon certified to this court for final determination:——
1. Whether the obligation set forth in the indictment is within any valid statute of the United States.
2. Whether the statute under which the indictment was found is constitutional.
The solution of the first question depends upon the construction to be given to the words 'for a less sum than one dollar.' The object of the provision was obviously to secure, as far as possible, the field for the circulation of stamps, as provided in the preceding section, without competition from any quarter. This currency was superseded by the fractional notes authorized to be issued by the act of March 3, 1863, sect. 4 (12 Stat. 711). Small notes payable in any specific articles, if issued, could have only a neighborhood circulation, and but a limited one there. It could be but little in the way of the stamps or small notes issued for the purposes of circulating change by the United States. Congress could, therefore, have had little or no motive to interfere with respect to the former. This must be borne in mind in the examination of the question in hand.
A dollar is the unit of our currency. It always means money, or what is regarded as money. In this case, the statute makes it the standard of measure with reference to the forbidden notes and obligations. If one of them be for a larger 'sum than one dollar,' it is not within the prohibition, and is not affected by the law. It is a fair, if not a necessary, inference, that the standard of measurement named was intended to be applied only to things ejusdem generis; in other words, to notes for money, and to nothing else.
It is certainly inapplicable to any thing not measurable by the pecuniary standard. It could not be applied where the measurement was to be, ex gratia, by the pound, the gallon, the yard, or any other standard that money. This view is supported by the statutory requirement that the forbidden thing must be 'intended to circulate as money, or to be received or used in lieu of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. Duvall
... ... Mo.App. 455; Tobin v. Neuman, 271 S.W. 842; ... Tiffany v. Natl. Bank, 85 U.S. 862; United ... States v. Van Auken, 96 U.S. 366; Secs. 655, 9977, R. S ... 1929; Howey v. Cole, 219 ... ...
-
Hansen v. Duvall
...36 Cyc. 1108; State v. Woodside, 112 Mo. App. 455; Tobin v. Neuman, 271 S.W. 842; Tiffany v. Natl. Bank, 85 U.S. 862; United States v. Van Auken, 96 U.S. 366; Secs. 655, 9977, R.S. 1929; Howey v. Cole, 219 Mo. App. 34, 269 S.W. 955; Dworkin v. Ins. Co., 285 Mo. 342, 226 S.W. 846; Grier v. R......
-
United States v. Empire Hat & Cap Mfg. Co.
...all of the facts they plead are admitted to be true. United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168, 178, 21 L.Ed. 538; United States v. Van Auken, 96 U.S. 366, 24 L.Ed. 852; Knoell v. United States, 3 Cir., 239 F. 16. Further, nothing but that averred in the four corners of the indictment will be con......
-
Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. v. Williams, 10853
...of exchange; or (3) the unit of value, the dollar. This third meaning is sustained by judicial authority. Thus, in United States v. Van Auken, 96 U.S. 366, 24 L.Ed. 852, the court said (page "A dollar is the unit of our currency. It always means money, or what is regarded as money." An exha......
-
The Nature of the Form: Legal and Regulatory Issues Surrounding the Bitcoin Digital Currency System
...105. Grinberg, supra note 8, at 190. See United States v. Roussopulous, 95 F. 977 (D. Minn. 1899). 106. United States v. Van Auken, 96 U.S. 366 (1877). 107. SOLOMON, supra note 93, at 97. 108. Van Auken , 96 U.S. at 367–68. 109. Id. at 367–68 (“Small notes payable in any specific articles, ......