Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Gold Clause Cases were a series of actions brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court narrowly upheld the Roosevelt administration's adjustment of the gold standard in response to the Great Depression.
Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which issuance of greenbacks as legal tender in peacetime was challenged. The Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1863 were upheld. Augustus D. Juilliard sold and delivered 100 bales of cotton to Thomas S. Greenman [1] for $5,122.90. Greenman tendered $5,100 ...
Bond coupons that promise to "pay in gold coin" Gold clauses in contracts allow a creditor the option to receive payment in gold or gold equivalent. A gold clause may prove valuable to the creditor in long term contracts, wherein questions may arise as to whether a currency in use at the time the contract was entered into would still have the same value when payment is due.
1. Search your inbox for the subject line 'Get Started with AOL Desktop Gold'. 2. Open the email. 3. Click Download AOL Desktop Gold or Update Now. 4. Navigate to your Downloads folder and click Save. 5. Follow the installation steps listed below.
Created Date: 8/30/2012 4:52:52 PM
[15] [16] Golan filed for certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States asking for the Court to hear the case. [17] On March 7, 2011, the Court granted the writ of certiorari. [ 18 ] [ 19 ] Oral argument was held October 5, 2011.
South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust statute, applied to insurance. To reach this decision, the Court held that insurance could be regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause, overturning Paul v
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court first ruled a state law unconstitutional. The decision created a growing precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts and hinted that Native Americans did not hold complete title to their own lands (an idea fully realized in Johnson v.