Chermack v. Bjornson

223 N.W.2d 659, 302 Minn. 213, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1176
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedNovember 22, 1974
Docket44730
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 223 N.W.2d 659 (Chermack v. Bjornson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chermack v. Bjornson, 223 N.W.2d 659, 302 Minn. 213, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1176 (Mich. 1974).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County dismissing an action “with prejudice” on the basis that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Plaintiff-appellant seeks relief, on appeal, on the basis of errors of law and fact. We affirm.

On June 22, 1973, plaintiff presented to the state treasurer for payment his Minnesota state income tax refund warrant. He demanded that the amount of the refund, $1,035.52, be tendered in gold and silver coin, under Article I, § 10, of the United States Constitution, which provides, in part: “No state shall * * * make *214 anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts * * This demand was not satisfied, and he sought declaratory relief.

The issue before this court is whether or not defendants, the state treasurer and auditor, are constitutionally required .to tender payment to plaintiff in gold or silver coin.

Article I, § 10, of the United States Constitution is a constitutional limitation upon the power of the states and not on the powers of Congress. Under Article I, § 8, of the United States Constitution, the power of Congress to establish a uniform legal tender and prohibit all other forms of currency exchange has been long established. In Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. 294 U. S. 240, 303, 55 S. Ct. 407, 414, 79 L. ed. 885, 900, 95 A. L. R. 1352, 1366 (1935), the Supreme Court stated:

“* * * The broad and comprehensive national authority over the subjects of revenue, finance, and currency is derived from the aggregate of the powers granted to the Congress, embracing the powers to lay and collect taxes, to borrow money, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures, and the added express power ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution’ the other enumerated powers. * * *
“The Constitution ‘was designed to provide the same currency, having a uniform legal value in all the States.’ It was for that reason that the power to regulate the value of money was conferred upon the Federal government, while the same power, as well as the power to emit bills of credit, was withdrawn from the States. The States cannot declare what shall be money, or regulate its value. Whatever power there is over the currency is vested in the Congress.” (Italics supplied.)

Congress provided in 31 USCA, § 463, in part, that:

“Every provision contained in or made with respect to any *215 obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts.”

The courts have consistently held that the Constitution leaves the power to declare what shall be legal tender for the payment of all debts to Congress. The mere utilization of a standard of legal tender prescribed by Congress is not state action as prohibited by U. S. Const., Art. I, § 10, but rather an effectuation of validly exercised constitutional power of Congress under U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8. The defendants, therefore, have acted in accordance with the Constitution, the Federal law, and public policy. The trial court was correct in dismissing this action with prejudice on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Dale
439 N.W.2d 98 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1989)
Rothacker v. Rockwall County Central Appraisal District
703 S.W.2d 235 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
May v. Bailey
693 S.W.2d 246 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1985)
Walton v. Keim
694 P.2d 1287 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1984)
Herald v. State
691 P.2d 1255 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1984)
Spurgeon v. Franchise Tax Board
160 Cal. App. 3d 524 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)
Allnutt v. State
478 A.2d 321 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1984)
Wikle v. City of Rapid City
347 N.W.2d 584 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1984)
Informal Opinion No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1984
First National Bank of Black Hills v. Treadway
339 N.W.2d 119 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1983)
Richardson v. Richardson
332 N.W.2d 524 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1983)
Solyom v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission
452 A.2d 1283 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1982)
City of Colton v. Corbly
323 N.W.2d 138 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1982)
Epperly v. State
648 P.2d 609 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 1982)
Kauffman v. Citizens State Bank of Loyal
307 N.W.2d 325 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1981)
Trohimovich v. Director of Department of Labor & Industries
584 P.2d 467 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1978)
United States v. Jack C. Rifen
577 F.2d 1111 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)
Usery v. Kennecott Copper Corp.
577 F.2d 1113 (Tenth Circuit, 1977)
Allen v. Craig
564 P.2d 552 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1977)
State v. Pina
561 P.2d 43 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 N.W.2d 659, 302 Minn. 213, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chermack-v-bjornson-minn-1974.