Defendant lessors and plaintiff realty company entered into a 99-year lease in 1890. The yearly rental was stipulated to be "grains of pure unalloyed gold," provided however, that in lieu thereof the lessors at their option could require the delivery of its value ($6,000) in such lawful currency as they designated. In 1933, upon the devaluation of the dollar and the regulation of gold by the Federal Government, the lessors gave the right to lessee to pay the amount of dollars the government was paying for newly-mined gold of the stated quantity (10,158.75). Plaintiff paid that amount in excess of $6,000 under protest. Subsequently it made a demand for the return of said sum. Defendant then demanded either payment in gold in London or forfeiture of the lease. Plaintiff filed bill in equity to enjoin the collection of the amount requested, and any attempted forfeiture of the lease on the part of the lessors in the event such sum is not forthcoming. Held, the government resolution abrogating gold clauses affected only obligations payable in money and not those payable in gold bullion. The provision in the lease for payment does not give the lessors a choice between gold and currency, but the obligation of the lessee is fixed absolutely, the lessors having merely a supplemental right. In response to the plaintiff's argument that the defendants suffered no damages because the government had requisitioned gold bullion, and therefore payment for the stipulated quantity would amount to but $6,000, the court said that the intention of the parties when they contracted was that gold would be at its intrinsic value and not some artificial value subsequently placed upon it. Gold bullion is not liable to any greater limitations than other forms of property and, therefore, although subject to eminent domain proceedings, just compensation must be paid. Emery Bird Thayer Dry goods Co. v. Williams, (D. C. Mo. 1936) 15 F. Supp. 938.

Included in

Contracts Commons