(b) As used in this section, the term "obligation" means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term "coin or currency" means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations. Defendants cite in support of their contentions Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247, 59 S.Ct. 847, 83 L.Ed. 1266 (1939). Henwood upheld legislation enacted as part of the comprehensive remedies adopted to overcome the stagnation of the depression.

With respect to the other causes of action, the court properly sustained Chase's and Finicle's demurrers because the Bill is worthless on its face. The Bill expressly provides that the Secretary of the Treasury's obligation (presumably to pay the face amount of the Bill) "arises out of the want of consideration for the pledge and by the redemption of the pledge under Public Resolution HJR-192, Public Law 73-10 and Guaranty Trust Co. of NY v. Henwood et al, [(1939)] 307 U.S. 247 [ 83 L.Ed. 1266, 59 S.Ct. 847] (FN3). . . ." The instructions attached to the Bill also referred to the Bill as a "Negotiable Instrument."

The option in the lessors to require payment in a fixed dollar amount of currency emphasizes the above conclusion that gold money value rental was the only thing in the minds of the parties in fixing the various rentals. That such character of contract is within the Joint Resolution is ruled by Holyoke Water Power Co. v. American Writing Paper Co., 300 U.S. 324, 57 S.Ct. 485, 81 L.Ed. 678, and Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247, 59 S.Ct. 847, 83 L.Ed. 1266, and related "Multiple Currency" cases. Chemical Bank Trust Co. v. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247, 59 S.Ct. 847, 83 L. Ed. 1266, and the Bethlehem Steel Co. cases, 307 U.S. 265, 59 S.Ct. 856, 83 L. Ed. 1280.

H.R.J. Res. 192, 73d Cong. (1933). Plaintiff has also cited, without elaboration, Guaranty Trust Co. of N. Y. v. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247 (1939). (Compl., Ex. E.)

Norman v. Baltimore O.R. Co., supra. The power to abrogate private contractual provisions requiring payment in currency equivalent to the gold content of the dollar before devaluation was affirmed in Holyoke Water Power Co. v. American Writing Paper Co., 1936, 300 U.S. 324, 57 S.Ct. 485, 81 L.Ed. 678, where the Court denied appellant's claim that he was not seeking payment of a debt but instead was purchasing the commodity, gold. The power to invalidate a provision permitting an option to take payment equivalent to a non-devalued foreign currency likewise was affirmed in Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood, 1939, 307 U.S. 247, 59 S.Ct. 847, 83 L.Ed. 1266. Where Congress had expressly delegated the authority to coin money to the Commission governing the Philippine Islands when it was subject to the sovereignty of the United States, the Supreme Court upheld an Act prohibiting the melting, mutilation or export of Philippine Island silver coins. Ling Su Fan v. United States, 1910, 218 U.S. 302, 31 S.Ct. 21, 54 L.Ed. 1049. At page 311 of 218 U.S., at page 23 of 31 S.Ct. the Court said:

When vital public interests are at stake and the exercise by Congress of its commerce power is attended by incidents analogous to those which attend the police power of a State, then Congress may constitutionally encroach upon interfering, private, vested interests, if it does not act arbitrarily or capriciously and adopts reasonably suitable means to accomplish its purposes. Louisville Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U.S. 467, 31 S.Ct. 265, 55 L.Ed. 297, 34 L.R.A., N.S., 671; North American Co. v. Securities Exchange Comm., 327 U.S. 686, 66 S.Ct. 785, 90 L.Ed. 945; American Power Light Co. v. Securities Exchange Comm., 329 U.S. 90, 67 S.Ct. 133, 91 L.Ed. 103; Norman v. Baltimore Ohio R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885, 95 A.L.R. 1352; Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247, 59 S.Ct. 847, 83 L.Ed. 1266. The first of the cited cases, Louisville Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, supra, was an action brought to enforce a written contract by which the Railroad Company, in consideration of the release by Mottley of a claim against it for personal injuries, agreed to issue free, annual passes on its railroad to Mottley and wife so long as either of them should live.

Congress has the exclusive authority to establish and regulate a monetary system, the exercise of which authority is not subject to judicial review. Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421, 444, 4 S.Ct. 122, 28 L.Ed. 204 et seq. (1844); Guaranty Trust v. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247, 59 S.Ct. 847, 83 L.Ed. 1266 (1939); Norman v. B O Railroad Co., 294 U.S. 240, 303, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885 et seq. (1935); Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 55 S.Ct. 432, 79 L.Ed. 912 (1934); Horne v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 344 F.2d 725 (8th Cir. 1965). The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 withdrew gold coin from circulation (31 U.S. Code § 315b), and no currency of the United States is redeemable in gold.

On February 5, 2005, defendant sent a letter to Ocwen, purporting to tender payment for the entire balance of the mortgage by an enclosed "Bonded Bill of Exchange" (Bill). The Bill stated that "[t]he obligation of the * * * Secretary of Treasury * * * arises out of the want of consideration for the pledge and by the redemption of the pledge under HJR-192, Public Law 73-10 and 307 U.S. 247, 59 S.Ct. 847, 83 L.Ed. 1266." Attached to the Bill were instructions on how to process it with the United States Treasury Department.

On February 5, 2005, defendant sent a letter to Ocwen, purporting to tender payment for the entire balance of the mortgage by an enclosed "Bonded Bill of Exchange" (Bill). The Bill stated that "[t]he obligation of the * * * Secretary of Treasury * * * arises out of the want of consideration for the pledge and by the redemption of the pledge under HJR-192, Public Law 73-10 and 59 S.Ct. 847." Attached to the Bill were instructions on how to process it with the United States Treasury Department. The instructions stated that defendant had established a "Personal Treasury UCC Contract Trust Account" through the Treasury Department, and that the Bill was a negotiable instrument that should be mailed to the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) for redemption.

The principle announced in Juilliard, concerning Congress' power to establish and control currency, was reaffirmed in several subsequent cases. See Norman v. Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885 (1935); Nortz v. United States, 294 U.S. 317, 55 S.Ct. 428, 79 L.Ed. 907 (1935); Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 55 S.Ct. 432, 79 L.Ed. 912 (1935) and Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247, 59 S.Ct. 847, 83 L.Ed. 1266 (1939). In Guaranty Trust the Court said: "Under these powers, Congress was authorized . . . to establish, regulate and control the national currency and to make that currency legal tender money for all purposes . . . . Whether it was `wise and expedient' to do so was under the Constitution, a determination to be made only by the Congress."