Adams

Adams v. Burlington Northern Railroad

Good Law
80 F.3d 1377·1996 WL 165009
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 10, 1996Nos. 94-35461, 94-35618California3,776 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Canby, J.

These cases arise from the efforts of bondholders to enforce “gold clauses” in railroad bonds issued almost a century ago. A gold clause requires payment of the bond’s obligations in gold dollars valued at the time the obligation was undertaken. In 1933, Congress rendered such gold clauses unenforceable, 48 Stat. 112 , 113 (1933), but then permitted them again in 1977, 91 Stat. 1227 , 1229 (1977). The issues presented here are whether the 1977 legislation revived these ancient gold clauses, and whether various actions of the parties have created new, posL-1977 obligations payable in gold. Our answer to both questions is “no.”

The bondholders brought a class action to force the Burlington Northern Railroad Company (“Burlington Northern” or “Railroad”) to pay the interest and principal of its gold bonds, issued in 1896 and 1921, in gold coin. Class representative Guy Adams appeals the district court’s dismissal of the action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 56. Because of the identity of issues in this case and Adams v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 94-35618, an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a class action to enforce the gold clauses in CSX Transportation (“CSXT”)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.