Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q5731836> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 38 of
38
with 100 triples per page.
- Q5731836 subject Q6996306.
- Q5731836 subject Q6998372.
- Q5731836 subject Q8288619.
- Q5731836 subject Q8518583.
- Q5731836 abstract "Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. 603 (1870), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Chief Justice, Salmon P. Chase, speaking for the Court, declared certain parts of the legal tender acts to be unconstitutional. Specifically, Chase declared that making greenbacks, a legal tender was unconstitutional.The lawsuit originated when one Mrs. Hepburn attempted to pay a debt due to one Henry Griswold on a promissory note, which was made five days prior to the issuance of United States notes that this case questioned. Griswold sued Hepburn in the Louisville Chancery Court on the note and refused Mrs. Hepburn's tender of United States notes to satisfy his claim. She then tendered the notes into the chancery court, which declared her debt satisfied.The Court of Errors of Kentucky reversed the chancery court's judgment, and Mrs. Hepburn appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which in this opinion affirmed the judgment of the Court of Errors.The Supreme Court found that while the federal government was authorized to coin money, this power was distinct from the power to make paper legal tender, which was not authorized under the Constitution of the United States. It also found that the treatment of notes as legal tender represented an impairment to enforcing the obligations of contracts. The Constitution prohibited the several states from impairing the obligations of contracts. While the court found no similar constraint upon the federal government, it held that such an impairment would violate the spirit of the Constitution. The dissent argued that the government was threatened by the war and making the notes legal tender provided the government with the necessary supplies to continue to fight the war. The majority affirmed that the government holds the power to wage war, but that making notes legal tender was not a necessary consequence of this power. Further the majority stated that making greenbacks a legal tender was unnecessary to fighting a war. All the federal government needed to do was make them "receivable for government dues". This argument is similar to the theory of ChartalismThe holding in this case was explicitly overruled by Knox v. Lee and other Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (Wall. 12) 457 (1871), in which Chase dissented.".
- Q5731836 wikiPageExternalLink case.html.
- Q5731836 wikiPageExternalLink Hepburn-v-Griswold.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q11147.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q11201.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q11698.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q1643989.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q16952285.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q190122.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q19384513.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q433051.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q43668.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q48525.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q4917.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q6423632.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q6517434.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q6602668.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q697327.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996306.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q6998372.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q8288619.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q8518583.
- Q5731836 wikiPageWikiLink Q908639.
- Q5731836 fullname "Hepburn v. Griswold".
- Q5731836 type Case.
- Q5731836 type LegalCase.
- Q5731836 type SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase.
- Q5731836 type UnitOfWork.
- Q5731836 type Situation.
- Q5731836 type Thing.
- Q5731836 type Q2334719.
- Q5731836 comment "Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. 603 (1870), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Chief Justice, Salmon P. Chase, speaking for the Court, declared certain parts of the legal tender acts to be unconstitutional. Specifically, Chase declared that making greenbacks, a legal tender was unconstitutional.The lawsuit originated when one Mrs.".
- Q5731836 label "Hepburn v. Griswold".
- Q5731836 name "Hepburn v. Griswold".