Devore v. Federal Savings
Case Date: 01/03/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 93-1872
|
January 3, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 93-1872 JOHN W. DEVORE, AND VINNIE E. DEVORE, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF DOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, Defendant, Appellee. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Breyer, Chief Judge, ___________ Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ John W. Devore and Vinnie E. Devore on brief pro se. ______________ ________________ Edward S. MacColl and Thompson, McNaboe, Ashley & Bull on brief __________________ _________________________________ for appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. Having reviewed the record and the parties' __________ submissions, we find that the district court acted properly in dismissing appellants' complaint for failure to state a claim and in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim. The appellants' central claim--that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful currency and so cannot be used as legal tender for private debts--is frivolous.1 We likewise find their subsidiary allegations to be without merit, substantially for the reasons cited by the district court. The judgment is affirmed. Appellants' motion for stay ________________________________________________________ and appellee's renewed motion for summary disposition are _____________________________________________________________ each denied as moot. ____________________ ____________________ 1. See, e.g., Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 448 ___ ____ _________ ________ (1884) ("Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals"); Edgar v. Inland _____ ______ Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276, 1278 n.4 (7th Cir. 1984) (per __________ curiam) (rejecting argument that "federal reserve notes are not money"); Foret v. Wilson, 725 F.2d 254, 254-55 (5th Cir. _____ ______ 1984) (per curiam) (rejecting argument that "only gold and silver coin may be constituted legal tender"); United States _____________ v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400, 402-04 (10th Cir. 1979); United States ____ _____________ v. Anderson, 584 F.2d 369, 374 (10th Cir. 1978); United ________ ______ States v. Schmitz, 542 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. ______ _______ _____ denied, 429 U.S. 1105 (1977); Milam v. United States, 524 ______ _____ ______________ F.2d 629, 630 (9th Cir. 1974); see also Howe v. United _________ ____ ______ States, 632 F. Supp. 700, 701 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 802 F.2d 440 ______ _____ (1st Cir. 1986) (table), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1066 (1987). ____________ |