Baldwin v. Baker

80 N.W. 36, 121 Mich. 259, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 560
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided September 19, 1899·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). The sole question presented is whether the act in question, making the silver dollar of 412.5 grains troy of standard silver a full legal tender for all debts and dues, public and private, is constitutional. The learned counsel for the defendant have filed an elaborate brief upon the question, discussing the history of coinage in this country, and the various acts of Congress upon the subject. Did we not regard the question as foreclosed by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, we should be compelled to enter upon a studious and laborious examination of the subject. We are., however, of the opinion that that court, in the so-called “Legal Tender Cases,” has placed the question beyond discussion in other courts. Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall. 457; Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U. S. 444. Counsel argue that what was said in those cases affecting the questions they now raise was obiter dicta, and therefore not binding. We are of the opinion that the court in those cases fully covered the question. The language is clear and unmistakable. It appears conceded that it covers the question unless it is dictum. We must regard such holding as the deliberate and authoritative enunciation by the court of the law. We therefore decline to enter upon a discussion of the question, because, in our opinion, it is stare decisis. See Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall. 551-553. This case was subsequently approved by the nearly unanimous opinion of the same court in Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U. S. 438, only one justice dissenting.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Baldwin v. Baker, 80 N.W. 36, 121 Mich. 259, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 560 (Mich. 1899).

80 N.W. 36 (Baldwin v. Baker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stevenson v. Detroit United Railway
132 N.W. 451 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Metropolitan Railway Co. v. Fonville
1907 OK 125 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Chauvin v. Detroit United Railway
97 N.W. 160 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1903)
Plant v. Heraty
92 N.W. 284 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Quirk v. Rapid Railway
90 N.W. 673 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Doty v. Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Co.
88 N.W. 1050 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Rouse v. Detroit Electric Railway
87 N.W. 68 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)
Ryan v. Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Co.
82 N.W. 278 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1900)