Skip to main content
· 9/15/1870

McGoon v. Shirk

Citations

  • 54 Ill. 408

Syllabus

<p>1. Chancery—removal of incumbrance on the application of the debtor. A party who has placed an incumbrance upon his property, as by a deed of trust, may come into a court of equity to obtain the removal of the incumbrance, by compelling the creditor to accept payment of the debt upon the terms and in the manner the debtor is entitled to discharge the same, according to the proper legal construction of their contract.</p> <p>2. Contracts specifically payable in gold—application of the legal tender act. In an action upon a contract payable in gold and silver, entered into prior to the passage of the legal tender act of February 25, 1863, it has been held, that under that act, damages may be properly assessed and judgment rendered, so as to give full effect to the intention of the parties as to the medium of payment, and where it appears to be the clear intent of a contract that payment or satisfaction shall be made in gold and silver, damages should be assessed and judgment rendered accordingly.</p> <p>3. Express contracts to pay in coined dollars can only be satisfied by the payment of coined dollars. They are not “ debts ” which may be satisfied by the tender of United States notes.</p> <p>4. In the application of this rule, no distinction is made as to the time when such contracts may have been entered into.</p> <p>5. So where a promissory note was payable, in terms, in American gold, such note having been executed subsequent to the passage of the legal tender act, on an application of the maker, who had given a deed of trust to secure the note, to a court of equity, to be relieved from making payment in gold, and to compel the holder to receive legal tender notes in discharge thereof, the relief sought was denied, on the ground the note could only be satisfied by the payment of gold, according to the contract.</p> <p>6. Fobmeb decisions. The cases of Hull v. Kohlsaat, 36 Ill. 130, Whetstone v. Colley, ib. 328, and Humphrey v. Clement, 44 ib. 299, holding a diff

Judges: Breese

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.