
    Note.
    At the same time with the decision of the preceding case was decided a case in error to the Supreme Court of California, argued some time before it; — the case, namely, of
    Broderick’s Executor v. Magraw,
    In which the principles of the preceding case of Hepburn v. Griswold were affirmed.
    The case was this:
    Magraw preferred a claim by petition in the Probate Court of the city of San Francisco, upon a note made by Broderick to the petitioner at New York, on the 1st of July, 1858. Broderick dying, his executor defended the suit.
    
      The defence set up by the executor was a tender of the amount due in United States notes.
    To this it was answered that the executor had collected the debts due to the estate in coin, and was bound, as trustee, to pay the coin thus collected tó the creditors; and, further, that the debt was contracted prior to the passage of the legal tender act, and could, therefore, be satisfied only in coin, according to the terms of the contract.
    Judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner, and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. From that court it was brought by the other party here.
    
      Mr. Carlisle, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. Wills, contra.
    
   The CHIEF JUSTICE

now gave the opinion of the court, to the effect that it was not necessary to examine the several questions presented by the record, for that the principles of the decision .just rendered required the affirmation of the judgment of the Supreme Court, and that it was

Affirmed accordingly. ■  