Briscoe v. Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 11 Pet. (36 U.S.) 257 (1837), argued 28 Jan., 1 Feb. 1837, decided 11 Feb. 1837 by vote of 6 to 1; McLean for the Court, Story in dissent. With the death of John Marshall in 1835, the Supreme Court's orientation shifted away from his nationalist outlook. Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky manifested this change in the field of banking and currency in the first full term of the court's new chief justice, Roger B. Taney. Article I, section 10 of the Constitution prohibited states from using “bills of credit,” but the precise meaning of a “bill of credit” remained unclear. In Craig v. Missouri (1830) the Marshall Court had held, by a vote of 4 to 3, that state interest‐bearing loan certificates were invalid under the constitutional prohibition. However, in the Briscoe case, the Court upheld the issuance of circulating notes by a state‐chartered bank even when the Bank's stock, funds, and profits belonged to the state, and where the officers and directors were appointed by the state legislature. The Court narrowly defined a “bill of credit” as a note issued by the state, on the faith of the state, and designed to circulate as money. Since the notes in question were redeemable by the bank and not by the state itself, they were not “bills of credit” for constitutional purposes. By validating the constitutionality of state bank notes, the Supreme Court completed the financial revolution triggered by President Andrew Jackson's refusal to recharter the Second Bank of the United States and opened the door to greater state control of banking and currency in the antebellum period.

See also Capitalism.

George Dargo

BRISCOE V. BANK OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

BRISCOE V. BANK OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, 11 Peters 257 (1837). Article 1, section 10, of the Constitution of the United States forbids states from emitting coin money or bills of credit. Repudiating Craig v. State of Missouri, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bank of Kentucky, although entirely owned by the state and managed by state-appointed officers, could legally issue bank notes. The Supreme Court found the notes to be backed by the resources of the bank, not the credit of the state, and the bank to be a separate entity capable of suing and being sued. Therefore, such notes were not bills of credit in the prohibited sense.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

White, G. Edward, with Gerald Gunther. The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815–35. New York: Macmillan, 1988.

HarveyPinney/a. r.

See alsoBills of Credit ; Craig v. State of Missouri .