GOING WITNESS. One who is going out of the jurisdiction of the court, although only into a state or country under the same general sovereignty: as, for example, if he is going from one to another of the United States, or, in Great Britain, from England to Scotland. 2 Dick. Ch. 454. See DEPOSI TION; WITNESS.
G 0 L D. Contracts expressly stipulating for payment in gold and silver dollars can only be satisfied by the payment of coined dollars ; Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 229, 19 L. Ed. 141; where it was said: "A contract to pay a certain number of dollars in gold or silver coins is nothing else than an agreement to deliver a certain weight of standard gold to be ascertained by a count of coins, each of which is certified to contain a definite •propor tion of that weight." This ease was follow ed in Gregory v. Morris, 96 U. S. 619, 24 • L. Ed. 740; Woodruff v. Mississippi, 162 U, S. 291, 16 Sup. Ct. 820, 40 L. Ed. 973. In the last case it was said: "This court has held that parties may contract for the payment of an obligation in gold, or any other money or commodity, and it must then be in the medium contracted for." It has been pointed out in Belford v. Woodward, 158 I11.122, 41 N. E. 1097, 29 L. R. A. 593, note, that the rule in Bronson v. Rodes has not been affected in any way by the Legal Tender Cases in 12 Wall. (U. S.) 457, 20 L. Ed. 287. In Trebil, cock v. Wilson, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 687, 20 L. Ed. 460, where a note in dollars was made pay able in specie, it was held that the designat ed number of dollars must be paid in so many gold or silver dollars of the coinage of the United States, reversing the supreme court of Iowa, which had held that a tender of greenbacks or United States legal tender notes was sufficient.
In Gregory v. Morris, 96 U. S. 619, 24 L. Ed. 740, the party was' entitled to recover a certain amount in gold 'coin; it was held that where the with the approbation of the court, takes judgment which might be dis charged in currency, it should be entered for a sum in currency equivalent to the specified amount of that coin as bullion. A decision oil a state'court, which holds a tender of legal tender notes as valid in' the payment of a contract payable only in specie, will be re viewed by the supreme court of the United States ; Trebilcock v. 12 Wall. (U. S.) 687, 20 L. Ed. 460. The doctrine of the latter court is therefore binding upon all the state courts.
A contract to pay a certain number of dol lars in gold ; Hittson v. Davenport, 4 Colo. 169 ; a draft for a certain number of gold dollars ; Chrysler v. Renois, 43 N. Y. 209; a note payable "in gold or silver ;" Phillips v. Dugan, 21 Ohio St. 466, 8 Am. Rep. 66 ; a ground rent payable in "gold or silver law ful money of the United States ;" Rankin v. Demott, 61 Pa. 263 ; are all enforceable ac cording to their terms. A ground rent pay able in "gold or silver money of the United States" must be paid in coin or its equivalent; Rankin v. Demott, 61 Pa. 263. In this case Agnew, J., said that the distinction taken in the earlier Pennsylvania cases between con tracts for a specific article and contracts for lawful money (coin or currency) had become unimportant since the decision in Bronson v. Rodes. In such cases it is held that payment in currency is to be computed upon the value of gold at the time of payment ; Hittson v. Davenport, 4 Colo. 169. Where rent was pay able "in current money of the State of New York equal in value to money of Great Brit ain," it was held that if payment was made in legal tender notes, the amount paid must equal the value of the stipulated amount of coin; Stranagban v. Youmans, 65 Barb. (N.
Y.) 392.
Where an act authorized a city to issue ne gotiable bonds, it was held to authorize the issue of bonds payable in gold coin; Judson v. City of Bessemer, 87 Ala. 240, 6 South. 267, 4 L. R. A. 742 ; so of bonds "payable in gold coin of the present standard weight and fine ness ;" Moore v. Walla Walla, 60 Fed. 961. To the same effect, Pollard v. City of Pleas ant Hill, 3 Dill. 195, Fed. Cas. No. 11,253; but, contra, of levee bonds which were issued payable "in gold coin," under an act which authorized the levee board to borrow money and issue its bonds therefor ; Woodruff v. State, 66 Miss. 298, 6 South. 235. But this judgment was reversed by the supreme court of the United States (Woodruff v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 291, 16 Sup. Ct. 820, 40 L. Ed. 973), which held: That the inquiry as to the medi um in which the bonds were payable raised a federal question and that the bonds were legally solvable in the money of the United States, whatever its description, and not in any particular kind of money, and that they were not void because of a want of power to issue them. Field, J., 'concurring, said that no transaction of commerce or business, etc., that is not immoral in its character, and which is not in its manifest purpose detri mental to society, can be declared invalid be cause made payable in gold coin or cur rency when that is established or recognized by the government.
An injunction will not lie to restrain the issue of municipal bonds payable "in gold or lawful money of the United States, at the option of the holder ;" Heilbron v. City of Cuthbert, 96 Ga. 312, 23 S. E. 206. But where a statute authorized the issue of bonds pay able "in gold coin or lawful money of the United States," an issue of bonds payable in gold coin of the United States of the present standard of weight and fineness was held in valid; Skinner v. Santa Rosa, 107 Cal. 464, 40 Pac. 742, 29 L. R. A. 512.
In the absence of stipulation in the con tract, a right to demand payment in coin will not be implied, although it appear that pay ment in coin was the only method of paythent recognized by law when the contract was en tered into and that the parties no doubt ex pected that payment would be made in coin; Maryland v. R. Co., 22 Wall. (U. S.) 105,'22 L. Ed. 713. So when the consideration in a note was a loan of gold and silver and there was no stipulation to pay in such money ; Curiae v. Abadie, 25 Cal. 502.
An insurance company in an action against an agent who had collected premiums in gold; Independent Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 104 Mass. 192 ; and a hotel guest in an action against an innkeeper to recover for gold coin left at the inn for safe keeping ; Kellogg v. Sweeney, 46 N. Y. 291, 7 Am. Rep. 333 ; are entitled to judgment in gold coin. In an action against an express company for failure to deliver gold coin which it received for transporta tion, judgment was entered in currency notes for the amount of the gold coin with the pre mium on gold added with interest from the date of demand; Cushing v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 98 Mass. 550. Where a person deposited both coin and treasury notes in a bank in 1861, it was held that the bank need not pay him in coin unless there was an express agreement to that effect ; Thompson v. Riggs, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 663, 18 L. Ed. 704.
See LEGAL TENDER; MONEY.