Today in Supreme Court History: February 7, 1870

2/7/1870: Hepburn v. Griswold decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (decided February 7, 1955): Alaskan tribe could not recover from United States value of trees taken from their land because they were “nomadic” and Congress had not recognized their ownership of that land

Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. 603 (decided February 7, 1870): defendant could not pay off promissory note with new paper money created by Congress in Civil War emergency (previously all money was in coin); Due Process violation by Congress in declaring new money good for payment of existing debts (quickly overruled by Legal Tender Cases, 1871)

Ott v. Mississippi Valley Barge Lins Co., 336 U.S. 169 (decided February 7, 1949): not a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause for Louisiana to tax barges by miles in Louisiana waters in proportion to miles of entire lines (some of which extended as far as the Ohio River)

Fisher v. Pace, 336 U.S. 155 (decided February 7, 1949): attorney (in trial on extent of injury for worker’s compensation) wouldn’t shut up after judge kept ruling his argument (as to weekly dollar amounts) irrelevant; Court lets Texas court contempt order stand, pointing out that attorney’s remedy was putting in exceptions for appeal (the opinion contains parts of the trial transcript which sound like Hollywood’s idea of a lawyer, but real life’s idea of a judge)

The L.P. Dayton, 120 U.S. 337 (decided February 7, 1887): If a tugboat collides with another tugged vessel, does the damaged tug sue the other vessel, the other tugboat, or its own vessel? It depends on the facts, and the Court here denies a motion on the pleadings. We also learn that if two ships heading the same direction are in danger of collision, the ship on the left has the duty to turn aside. (You’d think both would.)

[F.D. Wolf]

Hepburn was a 5-3 decision (eight justices being the full complement at the time.) The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Chase, joined by Justices Nelson, Grier, Clifford, and Field. Justice Miller dissented, joined by Justices Swayne and Davis.

Justice Grier had actually resigned from the Court on January 31, nine days before the decision was published, which the majority opinion notes in its last paragraph, so it is questionable whether his vote should have counted (though, of course, it did not change the outcome). President Grant appointed William Strong to succeed Grier. Grant also appointed Joseph Bradley to the new, ninth seat on the Court that Congress had created. Strong and Bradley, who both took their seats in March, joined the three dissenters in Hepburn to form a new 5-4 majority to uphold the Legal Tender Act. There is evidence to suggest that Grant chose Strong and Bradley specifically with a quick overturn of Hepburn in mind.

Chief Justice Salmon Chase had been President Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary when the Legal Tender Act was passed. He had, in fact, been instrumental in its creation and passage, and, as Treasury Secretary, its implementation. Chase’s portrait appears on the series 1862 $1 United States Note. He is the only individual, other than George Washington, to have his portrait on a U.S. one-dollar note.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks as always !

(Chase, of course, as a face appearing on money, got a promotion. His only peer in that stratosphere was Art Linkletter.)

[F.D. Wolf]

Thank you. I must confess I had to look up the Art Linkletter reference.

As you noted, the Hepburn case only held that the legal tender notes could not be used to pay debts incurred before the passage of the Legal Tender Act. The question as to debts incurred after the Act remained unanswered in several pending cases which would be consolidated as the Legal Tender Cases. Two days after Justice Bradley assumed his seat, Attorney General Ebeneezer Hoar announced that he wished to expedite those cases and that he would be asking the Court to overrule Hepburn. Who knows what the financial fallout might have been if the Court had ruled, as Chief Justice Chase would have, that creditors were free to reject the notes as payment and demand payment in gold or silver.

As to the seeming contradiction between Chase's position as Treasury Secretary and his position as Chief Justice, he would have justified the Act under Congress' emergency war powers, which, naturally, ended when the war ended. Though, as is seemingly always the way with government, emergency powers, once invoked, tend to soon become ordinary, everyday powers.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ebeneezer Hoar . . . what a name!

Always glad to get your input. Thanks!

[apedad]

Re: Fisher v. Pace (the trail transcript is just as fun as captcrisis descibes!)

'By Mr. Fisher: That is all right. We take exception to the conduct of the Court.

'By the Court: That is all right; I will fine you $25.00.

'By Mr. Fisher: If that will give you any satisfaction.

'By the Court: That is $50.00; that is $25.00 more. Mr. Sheriff come get it. Pay the clerk $50.00.

'By Mr. Fisher: You mean for trying to represent my client?

'By the Court: No, sir; for contempt of Court. Don't argue with me.

'By Mr. Fisher: I am making no effort to commit contempt, but merely trying to represent the plaintiff and stating in the argument—

'By the Court: Don't tell me. Mr. Sheriff, take him out of the courtroom. Go on out of the courtroom. I fine you three days in jail.

'By Mr. Fisher: If that will give you any satisfaction; you know you have all the advantage by you being on the bench.

'By the Court: That will be a hundred dollar fine and three days in jail. Take him out.

'By Mr. Fisher: I demand a right to state my position before the audience.

'By the Court (to the Sheriff): Don't let him stand there. Take him out.'

https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/fisher-v-pace-no-886656228

[Commenter_XY]

That judge was....certainly no nonsense. LOL.

Could you imagine that judge in a death penalty case?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Ignorant IANAL question. I followed the link and it is not obvious to me what was so objectional about Mr Fisher's statement to the jury; he was explaining the difference between a specific and general injury, and that state law capped damages at 125 weeks pay.

What I think is that the seven issues before the jury were how severe the injury was, who was responsible, and so on; and that Mr Fisher was trying to hint to the jury that his client deserved more money than 125 weeks pay would provide, so the only way to do that was find the injury more severe than it really was.

Is that a fair reading of it?

[Dan Schiavetta]

We don't know what exactly had been agreed to beforehand, nor the nuances of Texas law at the time, but that is my reading of it also.

[SRG2]

That Griswold gets about a bit...most long-lived litigant in US history, no? 😉

[Dan Schiavetta]

Also quite a physical specimen. At the age of 127 she still needed to buy contraceptives!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In England, there are these characters named Rex and Regina who have been in the courts since the Middle Ages.

[SRG2]

You'd think they'd have been found to be vexatious litigants by now

[Dan Schiavetta]

Probably. But that would have been a real mess, at least for a few years.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is the case that justifies the rule that cash must be accepted?