While the mortgage borrowers sent a notice to the credit manager offering to offer payment of the full amount owing, no actual amount was offered in the letter, so there was no valid offer, so the cancellation of the deed was not possible under section 13-4-24 of the O.C.G.A. Edward v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., F.3d (11th Cir. 16 August 2013)(Unreported). However, it has been asserted that the power to make government bills legal in this manner is a «necessary and proportionate» power — in the sense in which those words were used — to enact one or more of the powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution. I say «necessary and reasonable» in the sense in which these terms were used, because I accept that the Court has held that they should not be interpreted literally and precisely. The opposition to the tender must indicate the date of submission of the offer and the continuity of the offer. Cothrans & Elliott v. Mitchell, 54 Ga. 498 (1875); Toomey v. Read & Gresham, 133 Ga.
855, 67 p.E. 100 (1910). – The borrower who has signed a deed securing the debt is not entitled to an injunction against the sale of real estate under the power of attorney, unless the borrower pays the first or offers the creditor the amount certainly due. The same applies if a creditor applies instead of the borrower for an injunction to prevent the purchaser or assignee of such an act: to sell real estate in order to repay secured debts. Crockett v. Oliver, 218 Ga. 620, 129 S.E.2D 806 (1963). The detailed oral arguments presented by counsel in this case and the submissions in the cases and in the previous case of Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 wall. 630, which were set aside in these cases, violently advanced arguments on both sides of the question of Congress` power to make U.S. bank notes legal for private debt.
Without going into all those arguments, the Court considered it appropriate to set out in full the grounds for its judgment in the present case. No question of the scope and scope of Congress` implied powers under the Constitution can be satisfactorily debated without much of Chief Justice Marshall`s reasoning in the grand judgment in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, which has demonstrated and reaffirmed the power of Congress to establish a bank, even though the Constitution does not enumerate among the powers conferred the establishment of a bank or the incorporation of a corporation: why has Congress been given the power to determine measure and weight, but to enable it to establish a general and uniform measure and weight? Why was the power to mint currency and regulate its value and foreign coins transferred to Congress except to enable it to establish a fixed and uniform standard of value? And yet, you can`t have a weight measurement that has no weight [79 U.S. 457, 512] or a scale without length. How, then, can you have a uniform standard of worthless value? A substance whose weight fluctuated constantly or which did not weigh – such as gas – could not be considered the weight standard. An elastic and variable measurement could not be properly considered as the measurement standard. How, then, can Congress, by virtue of this power to create a unified system of coins and values, choose as a measure of value not a coin at all, but a fluctuating and changing entity? Not even one thing, but only the promise of one thing? This power to mint currency was given to Congress, and restrictions were imposed on states to «ensure uniformity of value and exclude fluctuating and variable currency.» When people were asked to sacrifice their right to issue credit bills and make everything but gold and silver a means of payment, they did so for the same purpose. This court has never spoken of the power of Congress except as a confidence to maintain the uniformity and purity of the standard of value.
Under this trust, and only on this side, Congress seeks to establish a standard of values that is neither pure nor uniform. On the contrary, a norm without intrinsic value; eternally fluctuating and uncertain, and with these properties influence all transactions in arithmetic in proportion to their size – a norm that, instead of offering security and uniformity of value, always invites uncertainty, speculation and extravagance. That is not what the Constitution has granted Congress. This is precisely what he forbade the states to do—exactly what the wise men who formed this government never intended the state or the federal government to have, and what no statesman from the founding of the government until the introduction of this law had ever claimed for it. Thus, US ratings that were not an offer have always been evaluated at the same level as those that were; and indeed, by price flows the day after the decision in Hepburn v. Griswold argued that treasury bills as debt relief for pre-existing debt were unconstitutional, their market value immediately rose relative to gold. The current legal tender law in the United States is 31 U.S.C. § 5103, which states: The amount that the plaintiff seeks to recover and that it can recover if the claimed offer is legally insufficient is $5,100.
There can therefore be no doubt as to the jurisdiction of that court to review the judgment of the District Court. Act of February 16, 1875, c. 77, 3, (18 St. 315.) The United States bank notes offered to settle the defendant`s debt to the plaintiff were originally issued pursuant to Acts of Congress of February 25, 1862, c. 33; July 11, 1862, c. 142; and March 3, 1863, c. 73, which were passed during the War of the Rebellion and decreed that these banknotes were to be «legal tender and legal tender for the settlement of all public and private debts in the United States,» except import duties and interest on the public debt. 12 345 Street, 532, 709. The provisions of previous acts of the Congress, to the extent necessary for the understanding of the most recent laws to cite them, are reflected in the following provisions of the revised statutes: Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 limits to fifty the number of documents that may be offered for payment.
[24] The governments issuing the coins must establish the euro as the sole legal tender.