ment; Burt v. Garden City Sand Co., 237 Ill. 478, 86 N. E. 1057, contract to sell "output" of cement mill required seller to deliver no more than he produced, notwithstanding expectation of buyer; Maryland v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 22 Wall. 112, 22 L. Ed. 714, and Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 36 Md. 542, both holding the implication to pay in gold must be in the language of contract, and not merely in expectation of parties.

Obligation of a contract to pay money is to pay that which the law shall recognize as money when payment is to be made.

Approved in Legal-Tender Case, 110 U. S. 449, 28 L. Ed. 215, 4 Sup. Ct. 130, following rule; Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 36 Md. 542, holding interest guaranteed on bonds may be paid in paper.

Principle that a contract to pay money means only to pay such as shall be lawful money at the time of payment is not asserted as respects contracts to pay in some defined species of money.

Approved in Belford v. Woodward, 158 Ill. 130, 29 L. R. A. 598, 41 N. E. 1099, Jones v. Childs, 8 Nev. 126, and Baltimore etc. R. v. State, 36 Md. 541, all holding principle inapplicable to contracts to pay in some specific kind of money; Bridges v. Reynolds, 40 Tex. 214, may be paid in gold or its equivalent in currency at debtor's option; dissenting opinion in Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 36 Md. 550, majority holding interest on bonds payable in paper; dissenting opinion in Bridges v. Reynolds, 40 Tex. 216, majority holding debts payable in gold may be so paid, or in currency equivalent, at debtor's option; Bridges v. Reynolds, 40 Tex. 217, arguendo.

Special obligations for payment in gold or silver. Note, 29 L. R. A. 518.

Sufficiency and effect of tender. Note, 6 E. R. C. 595.

United States may impair the obligation of contracts by legislation. Approved in Evans-Snider-Buel Co. v. M'Fadden, 105 Fed. 297, 58 L. R. A. 900, 44 C. C. A. 494, holding act validating all mortgages executed and recorded as of time executed valid though impairing attachment lien; In re Wyllie, 2 Hughes, 453, Fed. Cas. 18,112, In re Smith, 2 Woods, 460, Fed. Cas. 12,996, and In re Smith, 8 N. B. R. 407, 22 Fed. Cas. 401, all holding valid 17 Stat. 334, as to homestead exemptions of bankrupts; Lamb v. Chamness, 84 N. C. 384, holding Revised Statutes, § 5045, protected bankrupt's homestead irrespective of date of judgment lien.

Contracts are always made in reference to the possible exercise of the rightful authority of the government, and no obligation of contract can extend to defeat its exercise.

459

THE LEGAL-TENDER CASES. 12 Wall. 457-681

Approved in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Finn, 195 Fed. 691, 117 C. C. A. 1, under act of March 7, 1905 (24 Stats. at Large, p. 962), an employee's acceptance of benefits did not release employer from liability, though contract out of which release grew was made before passage of act; In re Arkansas Rate Cases, 187 Fed. 300, fact that rates established for intrastate carriage of freight affects interstate rates does not render such rates unconstitutional; Watson v. St. Louis T. M. & S. Ry. Co., 169 Fed. 946, 948, upholding constitutionality of Employers' Liability Act of Congress (act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65); Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Boston Terminal Co., 176 Mass. 117, 57 N. E. 215, holding taking land by eminent domain not breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment.

Approved in dissenting opinion in Lake View v. Rose etc. Cemetery Co., 70 Ill. 203, majority holding an act prohibiting interment by this company void.

Prohibition of the taking of property without just compensation or due process refers only to a direct taking and not to consequential injuries resulting from the exercise of lawful power.

Approved in Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 482, 484, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 671, 55 L. Ed. 303, 304, 31 Sup. Ct. 265, upholding right of Congress to enact Act of June 26, 1906, § 6, which rendered unenforceable prior contract of interstate carrier to issue annual passes for life; City of Pocatello v. Murray, 21 Idaho, 207, 120 Pac. 821, applying rule to section 2839, Revised Codes, enacted subsequent to adoption of city ordinance.

Legal-tender acts are constitutional as to debts contracted before or after passage.

Approved in Baldwin v. Baker, 121 Mich. 260, 80 N. W. 36, refusing to review Supreme Court decision as to constitutionality of Bland-Allison act, making silver dollar full legal tender; Newburgh Sav. Bank v. Woodbury, 173 N. Y. 62, 65 N. E. 861, holding money paid under mistake that legal tender act unconstitutional cannot be recovered upon subsequent decision holding act constitutional; Dooley v. Smith, 13 Wall. 606, Legal-Tender Case, 110 U. S. 438, 28 L. Ed. 211, 4 Sup. Ct. 124, McElderry v. Jones, 67 Ala. 205, People v. Cook, 44 Cal. 640, Black v. Lusk, 69 Ill. 76, Belford v. Woodward, 158 Ill. 129, 29 L. R. A. 598, 41 N. E. 1099, Bowen v. Clark, 46 Ind. 410, and Wells v. Bobb, 9 Bush, 32, Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 36 Md. 540, all following rule; State v. Wrightson, 56 N. J. L. 212, 22 L. R. A. 560, 28 Atl. 66, Phillips v. Dugan, 21 Ohio St. 469, 8 Am. Rep. 68, Longworth v. Mitchell, 26 Ohio St. 342, Bridges v. Reynolds, 40 Tex. 213, Townsend v. Jennison, Vt. 318, 8 Am. Rep. 385, Bigler v. Waller, 14 Wall. 308, 20 L. Ed.

894, Norwich etc. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 15 Wall. 195, 21 L. Ed. 178, and Munter v. Rogers, 50 Ala. 292, in all of which judgments, made payable in gold, are reversed; Glover v. Robbins, 49 Ala. 222, 20 Am. Rep. 274, and Brassell v. McLemore, 50 Ala. 478, debts payable "in specie" are held to be satisfied by legal-tender notes; The Vaughan, 14 Wall. 268, 20 L. Ed. 809, and Simpkins v. Low, 54 N. Y. 184, both holding jury, in assessing damages, may consider it will be paid in paper and allow therefor; Bissell v. Heyward, 96 U. S. 587, 24 L. Ed. 680, decree for contract in Confederate notes should be for sum equal to currency of United States at time and place payable and not to gold; In re Dunham, 8 Fed. Cas. 38, Woodruff v. Woodruff, 52 N. Y. 57, Troy v. Bland, 58 Ala. 199, Doll v. Earle, 59 N. Y. 639, and Proctor v. Heaton, 114 Ind. 253, 15 N. E. 23, all disallowing recovery of premiums for gold payments made in reliance on Hepburn case; dissenting opinion in Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 36 Md. 540; dissenting opinion in State v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 48 Md. 90, Hancock v. Yaden, 121 Ind. 372, 16 Am. St. Rep. 401, 6 L. R. A. 578, 23 N. E. 255, and Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 560, 32 Am. Rep. 778, 3 N. W. 361, all arguendo.

Distinguished in Crain v. McGoon, 86 Ill. 435, 29 Am. Rep. 41, and Harris v. Jex, 55 N. Y. 423, 14 Am. Rep. 287, both holding a refusal to accept paper, before this decision, does not discharge mortgage.

When and to what extent courts will recognize different kinds of money, both being legal tender. Note, 87 Am. Dec. 125.

Confiscation and sale, by an insurrectionary State, of the property of a loyal citizen are void, and the purchaser acquires no title.

Approved in Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. 195, 24 L. Ed. 655, holding sale of stock of alien enemies, by South Carolina, void; Vance v. Burtis, 39 Tex. 91, confiscation of debts is no defense against original creditor.

United States is the national government, with power over general subjects of legislation to deal with foreign nations and to preserve peace. Approved in Manigault v. S. M. Ward etc. Co., 123 Fed. 719, upholding valid exercise of State police power, though contravening provisions of private contract; Goetze v. United States, 103 Fed. 83, upholding Federal government's power to hold territory without incorporating it as integral; The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 605, 32 L. Ed. 1075, 9 Sup. Ct. 629, and Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 706, 37 L. Ed. 910, 13 Sup. Ct. 1019, both holding aliens may be excluded; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 579, 39 L. Ed. 1101, 15 Sup. Ct. 904, United States has jurisdiction to enjoin strikers.

Power to make notes legal tender is not given by the clause to coin money. That provision, as distinguished from power to issue notes, is not

461

BRONSON v. CHAPPELL.

12 Wall. 681-686

necessary to war power, nor to borrow money; it is a deprivation of property without due process of law, and it impairs obligation of contracts, which United States can only do in case of bankruptcy.

Approved in Legal-Tender Case, 110 U. S. 445, 28 L. Ed. 213, 4 Sup. Ct. 128, holding acts valid; dissenting opinion in Norwich etc. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 15 Wall. 196, 21 L. Ed. 178, majority hold with majority opinion in principal case.

Congress may only impair the obligation of contracts in cases of bank

ruptcy.

Approved in In re Kean, 2 Hughes, 323, Fed. Cas. 7630, In re Wyllie, 2 Hughes, 453, Fed. Cas. 18,112, and In re Smith, 8 N. B. R. 407, 22 Fed. Cas. 401, all holding 17 Stat. 577, regarding State homestead exemptions, valid; dissenting opinion in Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 763, 25 L. Ed. 517, majority holding sinking fund, for Pacific railroads, valid.

Congress may issue paper, but making it legal tender is not an appropriate means to any power and is repugnant to the power to coin money. It is against contemporary exposition; it impairs the obligation of contracts, which is not within the power of Congress. The act is also void as to debts subsequently contracted.

Approved in United States v. United States Fidelity etc. Co., 80 Vt. 95, 66 Atl. 813, upholding amendatory act approved February 4, 1905 (33 Stat. 811, c. 778; U. S. Comp. Stats. Supp. 1905, p. 493), providing a remedy for creditors in Federal courts; dissenting opinion in People v. Cook, 44 Cal. 641, majority following majority of principal case.

Supreme Court is not bound by former decisions involving construction of Constitution or statutes.

Approved in Scown v. Czarnecki, 264 Ill. 332, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 772, L. R. A. 1915B, 247, 106 N. E. 286, In re Barratt's Appeal, 14 App. D. C. 260, and Thaw v. Ritchie, 4 Mackey (D. C.), 384, all overruling previous decisions.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Legal-Tender Case, 110 U. S. 448, 28 L. Ed. 214, 4 Sup. Ct. 130; Lane v. Kolb, 92 Ala. 655, 9 South. 880; Woodruff v. Woodruff, 52 N. Y. 60; United States v. Boyer, 85 Fed. 429; dissenting opinion in Orr v. Quimby, 54 N. H. 634; Smith v. Ontario, 17 Blatchf. 243, Fed. Cas. 13,086, and Wadhams v. Gay, 73 Ill. 423.

12 Wall. 681-686, 20 L. Ed. 436, BRONSON v. CHAPPELL.

Agents are special, general or universal.

Approved in Abraham v. North etc. Ins. Co., 40 Fed. 721, holding company bound by agent herein.

Where written evidence of appointment is not required, it may be implied from circumstances.

Approved in Abraham v. North etc. Ins. Co., 40 Fed. 721, holding company bound by agent herein.

One allowing another to act, apparently by his authority, or by his conduct, adopts such acts thereafter, is bound as if authority were formally given.

Approved in Swift & Co. v. Detroit Rock Salt Co., 233 Fed. 234, applying rule where receiver of a corporation partially executed a contract, and after his discharge the corporation to all appearances recognized it; Allen v. Phoenix, 14 Idaho, 742, 95 Pac. 833, insurance which accepted application from one acting as agent, received premium and wrote policy constituted such person its agent; City Bank v. Thorp, 78 Conn. 217, 61 Atl. 430, where complainant permitted assigned claims to be paid to assignor before payment of loans for which assignment. made, payment is good defense to claims; McLean v. Nolan, 44 App. D. C. 6, where landlord agreed to make improvements and his agent and tenant selected superintendent who received estimates which were accepted by agent, such superintendent was agent of landlord; Libbey v. Harney, 41 App. D. C. 209, upholding lien of materialman who furnished materials upon an order of the contractor on the architect to pay for them and deduct amount from contract price; Swofford Bros. Drygoods Co. v. Berkowitz, 7 Kan. App. 26, 51 Pac. 797, in action to recover for conversion of goods there was no evidence of adoption or sanction of acts of alleged agent; dissenting opinion in President etc. of City Bank v. Thorp, 79 Conn. 215, 64 Atl. 466, majority holding, under the circumstances, bank was not guilty of negligence in failing to attempt to collect overdue accounts; Abraham v. North etc. Ins. Co., 40 Fed. 721, holding company bound by agent herein; Bank of Commerce v. Bright, 77 Fed. 951, 23 C. C. A. 586, having retained fruits, may be presumed to have sanctioned action; McElroy v. British American Assur. Co., 94 Fed. 998, 36 C. C. A. 615, accepting premiums and issuing policy ratifics agency, though, by policy, agents only authorized in writing; United States Express Co. v. Rawson, 106 Ind. 217, 6 N. E. 339, agent,, contrary to rule, receives part payment and converts, company is liable if ratifying such receipt; Swofford Bros. Dry-Goods Co. v. Berkowitz, 7 Kan. App. 26, 51 Pac. 797, agency cannot be proved by declarations of agent; McNeil v. Boston, 154 Mass. 285, 28 N. E. 248, acts of directors openly done over long period, without objection, are authorized; Hatch v. Ferguson, 66 Fed. 672, 14 C. C. A. 41, allowing improvement made, one is estopped from claiming title.

Distinguished in Torrey v. Parker, 220 Mass. 524, 108 N. E. 474, majority holding, although lessee made no protest to work being done