Time: Sat Mar 29 20:40:02 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA27507;
	Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:00:37 -0700 (MST)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA19649;
	Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:00:30 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 20:26:56 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: [TL] WHAT IS MONEY? [1/2]

<snip>
>
>>Greetings to All,
>>
>>Just what is money, anyway?
>>
>>                    MONEY
>>
>>1.   A promissory note is a written promise by
>>     one person to pay to another or to bearer
>>     a fixed sum of money.
>>     See:
>>          Davis v. Spencer, 267 Ill
>>          57; 107 NE 826;
>>          Jencks v. Rice, 119 Iowa 451;
>>          Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass 113.
>>
>>2.   As a decree by a court of the U.S. for
>>     the payment of money can be made only for
>>     the payment of so many dollars of some
>>     specie of money that is made lawful money
>>     by a statute of the U.S., it follows that
>>     a recovery upon such a promissory note or
>>     contract must be for some dollars in gold
>>     and silver coins.
>>     See:
>>          The Edith, D.C. N.Y. (1875), 5 Ben.
>>          144, 8 Fed. Cases 4,281;
>>          Forbes v. Murray, D.C. N.Y. (1869),
>>          3 Ben. 497, 9 Fed. Cases 4,928.
>>
>>3.   The general rule is that a final judgment
>>     for money must specify the amount
>>     awarded.
>>     See:
>>          U.S. v. F. & M. Shaefer Brewing, 356
>>          US 227;
>>          45 Am Jur 2d 81.
>>
>>4.   An act by the legislature of Alabama,
>>     September 30, 1920, page 36, providing
>>     when a check is presented or forwarded to
>>     the payee bank for payment, it may at its
>>     option pay or remit the same in money or
>>     in exchange drawn on its reserves.
>>     However, it is unconstitutional and void
>>     as an attempt by the state to make a
>>     class of debts payable at the option of
>>     the debtor in something other than gold
>>     and silver coin.
>>     See:
>>          Capitol Grain and Feed Co v. Federal
>>          Reserve Bank of Atlanta, D.C. Ga.
>>          (1925), 3 F.2d 614, 269 US 589, 70 
>>          L Ed 427.
>>
>>5.   As bills of credit were entirely
>>     abolished, the paper money of the state
>>     banks was the only currency or
>>     circulating medium to which the
>>     prohibition (Art. 1, Sec. 10) could have
>>     had any application.
>>     See:
>>          Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 US 533.
>>          (What is checkbook credit, lines of
>>          credit, etc?)
>>
>>6.   Congress was vested with the power to
>>     borrow money and that the promise of
>>     payment having been given, no authority
>>     remained to alter or destroy the original
>>     promise.
>>     See:
>>          Perry v. U.S., 294 US 330.
>>
>>7.   The states are not forbidden to issue
>>     coupons receivable for taxes, nor execute
>>     instruments binding themselves to pay
>>     money at a future day for services
>>     rendered or money borrowed. 
>>     See:
>>          Poindexter v. Greenbow, 114 US 70;
>>          Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 US 567;
>>          Houston & Texas Central R.R. v.
>>          Texas, 177 US 66. (If this is true,
>>          then why do states borrow from
>>          banks? States issue bonds and the
>>          banks buy the bonds by creating a
>>          new demand deposit and nothing is
>>          deposited.  When it comes time to
>>          pay the bonds, the state acts as a
>>          collection agent for the bank.)
>>
>>8.   Neither the president nor the cashier of
>>     a bank has a right to accept anything but
>>     money in payment of an obligation due the
>>     bank.
>>     See:
>>          Aliquippa National Bank v. Harvey,
>>          12 A.2d 409, 340 Pa 223;
>>          First National Bank of Mt. Holley
>>          Springs v. Cumbler, 21 A.2d 120;
>>          Re Bowen 46 F.Supp 631, 16 A.2d 409.
>>
>>9.   "Some years ago a new type of installment
>>     credit appeared in banks throughout the
>>     country. It became known as check credit
>>     or revolving check credit. Basically, it
>>     provided that those eligible for such
>>     credit be granted a line of credit in the
>>     agreed amount. In order to use that line,
>>     the borrower needed merely to write
>>     checks. The checks were special checks,
>>     and were NOT actually checking accounts. 
>>     The check was merely the instrument by
>>     which the loan account was activated.
>>     Usually it did not go through all the
>>     processes that an ORDINARY check does
>>     once it reaches the bank. However, it had
>>     the APPEARANCE of an ORDINARY check, and
>>     was so used by the customer and the
>>     person to whom he gave the check."
>>     Source: "The Bankers Handbook" (?
>>     edition), page 530. (Does the bank
>>     disclose this information to you? It
>>     should be quite important for you to know
>>     that the bank just created a bookkeeping
>>     entry to create the "loan", and that the
>>     checks were not actually checks, but had
>>     the appearance of checks. This is what is
>>     known as a common law cheat and should be
>>     in violation of Fair Trade Practices
>>     because it gives banks a much greater
>>     advantage in business than you or I, or
>>     other businesses.)
>>     See:
>>          Title 15, Sec. 1635 of Chap. 41.
>>
>>10.  Unless there is what the law considers a
>>     valuable consideration, it will not be
>>     sufficient to maintain an action. And
>>     there is a distinction between a valuable
>>     consideration, other than money, and a
>>     money consideration.  While in the
>>     "former" case the slightest consideration
>>     will support a promise (consideration
>>     other than money) to pay the largest
>>     amount to the full extent of the promise,
>>     in the latter the consideration will
>>     support a promise only to the extent of
>>     the money forming the consideration. The
>>     law leaves the measure of a valuable
>>     consideration other than money, for a
>>     promise to pay, to the parties to the
>>     contract; but money being the standard of
>>     value, is not the subject to be changed
>>     by contract, and will support a promise
>>     to pay money only to the extent of the
>>     amount of the consideration. 
>>     See:
>>          Sawyer v. McLouth, 46 Barb 350.
>>
>>11.  The term "tender" as used in the books,
>>     denotes a legal OFFER, one which one
>>     party is under obligation to make and the
>>     other bound to accept.
>>     See:
>>          Duluth v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229;
>>          Patnote v. Sanders, 41 Vt. 66.
>>
>>12.  The promissory note, even when payable on
>>     demand and fully secured, is still, as
>>     its name implies, only a PROMISE to pay,
>>     and does not represent the paying out or
>>     reduction of assets.
>>     See:
>>          Don E. Williams Co. v. Commissioner
>>          of IRS, 51 L.Ed. 2d 48 (Feb. 22,
>>          1977).
>>
>>13.  Money does not embrace notes (promises to
>>     pay money).
>>     See:
>>          Lane v. Railey;
>>          U.S. v. Wells;
>>          Devenny v. Devenny;
>>          State v. Hoke;
>>          Hamilton v. State; etc.. (Since a
>>          Federal Reserve Note is not even a
>>          note [a promise to pay], money
>>          cannot embrace a Federal Reserve
>>          note.)
>>
>>14.  An agent (clerk) has no implied authority
>>     to receive anything else than MONEY in
>>     satisfaction of a debt due his principal.
>>     He cannot, therefore, take payment in a
>>     check.
>>     See:
>>          Hall v. Storrs, 7 Wis. 217;
>>          Buckwalter v. Craig, 55 Mo. 71.
>>
>>15.  Payment of debts is
>>     imperative/axiomatic/essential for the
>>     right of contract/property to exist, for
>>     without payment (delivery of money), the
>>     debt still exists.
>>     See:
>>          Stanek v. White, 215 NW 784.
>>
>>16.  It is the general rule that a pledger,
>>     whose tender (offer) has been refused,
>>     will not be granted affirmative relief of
>>     an equitable nature, unless he has kept
>>     the tender good or at least comes before
>>     the court in an attitude of willingness
>>     to pay what is due him.
>>     See:
>>          Norton v. Baxter, 41 Minn. d 146;
>>          Tuthill v. Morris, 81 NY 94.
>>
>>17.  Negotiable note must be promise to pay
>>     money.
>>     See:
>>          Roads v. Webb, 91 Me 410. (Federal
>>          Reserve Notes are not money.)
>>
>>18.  Federal Reserve notes may be refused.
>>     See:
>>          MacLeod v. Hoover, 105 So 205, 159
>>          La 244.
>>
>>19.  The only substances ever declared as
>>     money within the U.S. were gold and
>>     silver, in coin form, with copper/nickel
>>     serving in token capacity only.
>>     See:
>>          12 USCA 152 re. "lawful money" and
>>          Coinage Act of April 2, 1792, at
>>          Sections 11, 16, & 20;
>>          re. copper/nickel tokens, see Sec.
>>          9, and 31 USCA 460.
>>
>>20.  A legal tender, when made, must be kept
>>     good according to the rules of the common
>>     law.
>>     See:
>>          William Wolf Co. v. Canadian R.R.
>>          Co., 56 Pac. Rep 453.
>>
>>21.  It has been held that if the instrument
>>     recites on its face its consideration,
>>     the consideration must be proved.
>>     See:
>>          Smith v. Doherty, 60 SW 380, 109 Ky
>>          616.
>>
>>22.  Where the instrument sued upon is
>>     non-negotiable, plaintiff must prove its
>>     consideration.
>>     See:
>>          Shubert Theatrical Co. v. Dalton,
>>          167 NY S 332.
>>
>>23.  A promissory note is defined as an
>>     unconditional promise to pay a sum
>>     certain in dollars.
>>     See:
>>          Regulation A, Sec. 4 (1005) (a)
>>          Federal Reserve Act. (Dollars =
>>          money, not Federal Reserve notes.)
>>
>>24.  Money imports value.
>>     See:
>>          Neufield v. U.S., 118 F.2d 375.
>>          (What value has a piece of paper
>>          with green ink on it, especially
>>          when it is redeemable in no-thing?)
>>
>>25.  Money has value only by law and not by
>>     nature so that a conviction of those who
>>     use it is sufficient to deprive it of its
>>     value and of its purchasing power.
>>     See:
>>          Incitti v. Ferrante, 175 A 908.
>>
>>26.  When a contract is agreed to be paid in
>>     dollars, a payment in money is meant and
>>     not the transfer of notes.
>>     See:
>>          Simon v. Douglas, 225 SW 721; 189 Ky
>>          644.
>>
>>27.  Income must be money or that which is
>>     convertible into money.
>>     See:
>>          Snyders Estate, 31 A.2d 132, 136;
>>          346 Pa 615. (Is any Federal Reserve
>>          note convertible at par or
>>          otherwise, through a bank, for
>>          money?)
>>
>>28.  Monetary value means value calculated on
>>     the basis of $1 for an amount of silver
>>     or gold equal to the amount at the time
>>     contained in the standard silver dollar
>>     or gold dollar.
>>     See:
>>          USCA Title 31, Chap. 8, Sec. 448(b)
>>          (Gold and silver have a value lies
>>          in and of themselves -- notes do
>>          not.)
>>
>>29.  Money is a commodity, having a value of
>>     its own.  It is a common measure of
>>     value. It has change ability.
>>     See:
>>          U.S. v. Gellman, D.C. Minn. 44
>>          F.Supp. 360. (Gold and silver are
>>          commodities and have a value in and
>>          of themselves -- notes are not
>>          commodities and have no value in and
>>          of themselves. Granted they are
>>          speculated upon in the money markets
>>          but that does not mean they have a
>>          value in and of themselves.  Their
>>          value lies in the confidence of the
>>          people, not in the thing itself.)
>>
>>30.  Money is defined as meaning a
>>     representative standard or measure of
>>     value.
>>     See:
>>          Jones v. Overstreet, 4 T.B. Mon.
>>          547.
>>
>>31.  The courts have found occasion to decide
>>     that the pleading did not raise certain
>>     issues such as: want of consideration
>>     See:
>>          Sopp v. Linfrand, 36 P.2d 794;
>>          negotiability Banca Commission Italiana
>>          Dr. Genova v. P. Schlegal Co., 80 P 414;
>>          ownership Sheffield v. Hatch, 135 So 165);
>>          payment Minor v. Carpenter, 152 P 737.
>>
>>32.  Checkbook money is not legal tender.
>>     See:
>>          Story of Checks, Federal Reserve
>>          Bank of NY, p 20.
>>
>>33.  Commercial banks are important financial
>>     institutions because they can create
>>     money--checkbook money.
>>     See:
>>          Money's Economic Balance, Federal
>>          Reserve Bank of NY, P 17 (8th ed.,
>>          1979).
>>
>>34.  A check is defined as a draft or order
>>     upon a bank, purporting to be drawn upon
>>     a deposit of funds for the payment of a
>>     certain sum of money.
>>     See:
>>          Federal Reserve Act, Reg. J, Sec. 3
>>          (12). (Money is not notes.)
>>
>>35.  Nothing contained in this chapter shall
>>     impair the redeemability of any currency
>>     of the United States.
>>     See:
>>          31 USC 9?6. (If currency has any
>>          redeemability -- where?)
>>
>>36.  Bank notes are promissory notes of a
>>     bank, payable to bearer. They are a good
>>     tender unless objected to at the time
>>     because not money.
>>     See:
>>          Parsons Laws of Business, Page 172. 
>>          (Anything is acceptable as a tender
>>          unless objected to.)
>>
>>37.  It cannot be doubted that under the
>>     Constitution the power to provide a
>>     circulating of coins is given to
>>     Congress. And it is settled by the
>>     uniform practice of the government and 
>>     repeated decisions, that Congress may
>>     constitutionally authorize the omission
>>     of bills of credit. Having this in the
>>     exercise of undisputed constitutional
>>     power undertaken to provide a currency
>>     for the whole country, it cannot be
>>     questioned that Congress may
>>     constitutionally secure the benefit of it
>>     to the people by appropriate legislation.
>>     To this end, Congress has denied the
>>     quality of legal tender to foreign coins,
>>     and has provided by law against the
>>     imposition of counterfeit and base coin
>
><<< Continued to next message >>>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail