Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Railroad Company v. Johnson, 1872 — 82 U.S. 195 · caselaw · US
General
Railroad Company v. Johnson
82 U.S. 19515 Wall. 195·Supreme Court of the United States·1872
My brothers CLIFFORD and FIELD concur in this dissent.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Railroad Company v. Johnson.
The constitutionality of the acts of Congress of February 25th, 1862, and of subsequent acts in addition thereto, making certain notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of debts, reaffirmed.
In error to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
Johnson sued the Norwich and Worcester Railroad Company on certain coupons for interest attached to bonds, made by the said company A. D. 1860. When the coupons fell due, the amount was tendered in the legal-tender notes of the United States, issued under the act of Congress of Eebruary 25tb, 1862, and the several acts in addition thereto, and they were refused. The State court rendered judgment that this tender was not good, and that the plaintiff should receive the amount with interest in the gold and silver coin of the United States. This writ of error was brought to reverse that judgment.
Mr. J. Halsey, for the plaintiff in error. No opposing counsel.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice MILLER]
Mr. Justice MILLER
delivered the opinion of the court.
In accordance with the principles settled by this court in the cases of Knox v. Lee, and Parker v. Davis which were affirmed in Dooley v. Smith, the tender was a good and valid one, and the judgment for coin is erroneous, and must be reversed.
It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut be, and the same is hereby, reversed, and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings
In conformity with this opinion.
12 Wallace, 457.
13 Id. 604.
[DISSENT — The CHIEF JUSTICE]
The CHIEF JUSTICE
dissenting: I think it my duty to express my dissent from the judgment just announced, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court in Hepburn v. Griswold, and in the dissenting opinions in Knox v. Lee, and Parker v. Davis.
My brothers CLIFFORD and FIELD concur in this dissent.
8 Wallace, 603.