Devore v. Federal Savings ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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). 
                                     ____________