Buchegger v. Shultz
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne Ciicuit. The facts are ■ stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Cooley J.
Shultz sued Buehegger upon a note given in 1862 for the sum of eight hundred dollars, of which five hundred dollars was to be paid in gold. The Circuit Judge admitted- evidence to show that the ,note was given for money loaned, five hundred dollars of which was in gold, and was agreed to ' be repaid in like money. He also allowed the plaintiff to show that at the time of the trial gold was worth a premium of fifty per cent, in treasury legal tender notes, and rendered judgment against the defendant, computed upon that basis.
The constitutionality of the Legal Tender Act (so called) is…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Klauber v. BiggerstaffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- State v. WrightOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Quinn v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Howe v. NickersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. State ex rel. WardIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893