Lane v. Gluckauf

By the Court,

Sanderson, C. J. All the points made by counsel for appellant relating to the constitutionality of the so-called Specific Contract Act of 1863 we pass without further notice. So far as this Court is concerned, that question has been put at rest (Carpentier v. Atherton, 25 Cal. 564,) and contracts'made under that Act must be held valid.

But it is claimed that the contract in this case is not within the meaning of that Act, and in support of that proposition the case of Lamping v. Hyatt et al., 26 Cal. 99, is cited. That case, however, does not sustain the proposition. We there held that the contract sued on was not a gold contract and did not therefore support the judgment, which required satisfaction in gold. There is an obvious difference between the terms of the contract in that case and the contract in this.

The Specific Contract Act (so called) did not propose to make contracts legal which otherwise were illegal, but to extend to certain contracts assumed to be legal the equitable remedy of specific performance. It was matter of doubt whether, assuming those contracts to be legal and not repugnant to the legislation of Congress upon the subject of legal tender, the Courts had the power to enforce their performance in such a manner as to secure all the benefits intended thereby, or, in other words, whether the Courts would or could, without the aid of legislation, extend to such contracts the remedy of specific performance. To remove that doubt, and for no other purpose, the Act in question was passed. If the Courts should determine that contracts of the character contemplated by the Act were illegal and void on account of some repugnancy to all or either of the laws of Congress providing what shall b.e legal tender in payment of debts, the Act would have [293]no office to perform and become harmless because inoperative. If, on the contrary, such contracts should be held valid, a remedy in case of their nonperformance, about which there could be no controversy, would be provided, and any inconvenience which'might result on account of any real or supposed uncertainty as to the remedy would be obviated. Such was the object of the Act in question, and it had no other purpose. It was not intended to operate in hostility to any of the laws of Congress, but to secure on the part of all citizens an honest observance of the terms of their contracts and to prevent them, so far as it could be lawfully done, from availing themselves of a legal measure of public necessity to work a moral and private wrong.