These are

particulars do not sufficiently appear on its face. illustrations of a general doctrine; but how far the doctrine will be carried by the courts is not certain. Evidently it has limits.

3

§ 214. Promissory Note.2 This well-known mercantile security requires little explanation here. It has been defined to be "a written promise, by one person to another, for the payment of money at a specified time, absolutely and at all events." The instrument need not be negotiable to be a promissory note, even within the meaning of the words in criminal statutes; as in the statutes against forgery. And the following writing; namely, "Due J. F. one dollar on settlement this day," &c.,- was held in New York to be a note for the payment of money. A bank-bill is a promissory note; though, of course, every promissory note is not a bank-bill. But the reader will find this instrument best described in works treating of bills and notes.

1 Reg. v. Vivian, 1 Den. C. C. 35; Reg. v. Williams, 2 Car. & K. 51. See, for a further illustration, Reg. v. Illidge, Temp. & M. 127, 13 Jur. 543, 18 Law J., N. S., M. C. 179, 1 Den. C. C. 404.

33.

Story Bills, § 60; Sibley v. Phelps, 6 Cush. 172.

5 Rex v. Box, Russ. & Ry. 300, 6 Taunt. 325.

People v. Finch, 5 Johns. 237.

Hobbs v. The State, 9 Misso. 845. Contra, Culp v. The State, 1 Port.

The State v. Wilson, 3 Brev. 196. And see The State v. Wilkins, 17 Vt. 151; The State v. Ward, 6 N. H. 529; ante, § 204; The State v. Tillery, 1 Nott & McCord, 9; The State v. Cassados, 1 Nott & McCord, 91.

The reader may like to examine the following cases, in addition to those already cited to this section, decided under the criminal law. Rex v. Elliott, 2 East P. C. 951; Wilcox's case, 2 Russ. Crimes, Grea. Ed. 497; Rex v. Clark, Russ. & Ry. 181, 2 Leach, 4th ed. 1036; Rex v. Treble, 2 Leach, 4th ed. 1040, 2 Taunt. 328, Russ. & Ry. 164; Butler v. The State, 22 Ala. 43. An indorsement of a promissory note is a "contract." Poage v. The State, 3 Ohio State, 229.

§ 215. Bill of Exchange. Similar in legal effect to a promissory note is a bill of exchange; being "a written order or request by one person to another for the payment of money at a specified time, absolutely and at all events."2 Like a promissory note,3 it is generally negotiable, not necessarily so. For further information concerning this mercantile and commercial security, the reader should consult the books of commercial law, and a single section of our second volume.6.

§ 216. Undertaking for the Payment of Money. This phrase is somewhat broader in meaning than the term promissory note; but the decisions on the subject are too few to justify an attempt at exact definition.

• For decisions in the criminal law as to what is a bill of exchange, see Rex v. Hart, 6 Car. & P. 106; Reg. v. Butterwick, 2 Moody & R. 196; Rex v. Wicks, Russ. & Ry. 149; Rex v. Randall, Russ. & Ry. 195; Reg. v. Smith, 2 Moody, 295; Reg. v. Bartlett, 2 Moody & R. 362; Rex v. Birkett, Russ. & Ry. 251; Rex v. Pooley, Russ. & Ry. 12; People v. Howell, 4 Johns. 296; Rex v. Chisholm, Russ. & Ry. 297; Reg. v. Curry, 2 Moody, 218; Rex v. Szudurskie, 1 Moody, 429; Rex v. McIntosh, 2 East P. C. 942, 956, 2 Leach, 4th ed. 883. What is an "acceptance of a bill of exchange," see Reg. v. Cooke, 8 Car. & P. 582; Reg. v. Rogers, 8 Car. & P. 629. As to what is an "indorsement," see Rex v. Arscott, 6 Car. & P. 408; Rex v. Bigg, Stra. 18. What a "draft for the payment of money," Rex v. Pooley, 3 B. & P. 311, Russ. & Ry. 31.

* Reg. v. Reed, 8 Car. & P. 623; 2 Lewin, 185; Reg. v. Stone, 1 Den. C.' C. 181, 2 Car. & K. 364; The State v. Humphrys, 10 Humph. 442; Reg. v. Thorn, Car. & M. 206. As to what are " securities for money," "valuable securities," "" securities and effects," &c., see Rex v. Hart, 6 Car. & P. 106; Rex v. Yates, 1 Moody, 170, Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 273, 333; Rex v. Aslett, Russ. & Ry. 67, 2 Leach, 4th ed. 958; Reg. v. Heath, 2 Moody, 33; Rex v. Bakewell, 2 Leach, 4th ed. 943; Reg. v. Greenhalgh, Dears, 267, 25 Eng. L. & Eq. 570. What a book of accounts," Commonwealth v. Williams, 9 Met. 273. What a "deed," Rex v. Fauntleroy, 1 Moody, 52, 2′′ Bing. 413, 1 Car. & P. 421.

A re

§ 217. Receipt for Money - Receipt for Goods.1 ceipt is a written acknowledgment, by the maker, of something delivered him from another. Like orders, warrants, and requests,2 receipts are of two kinds - such as are receipts on their face, and such as may be shown to be receipts by averment and proof. To make the writing sufficient in itself, no exact form of words is necessary, only the idea must be conveyed to common apprehension. The expression, "Received the contents above, by me, Stephen Withers," written below a bill of parcels; or even "settled 47. Samuel Hughes;" or "paid sadler," Sadler being shown to be a person's name, though written with a small s,5 constitutes a receipt, without the aid of other proof; and so the words, "Received from Mr. Bendon, due to Mr. Warman, 17s. Settelled," no signature being added below, have been held to be Mr. Bendon's receipt, there being evidence of its having been uttered as such. On the other hand, the following writing," William Chinnery, Esq., paid to X tomson, the som of 8 pounds, feb. 13, 1812," was held to come short; because it was an assertion, not an acknowledgment, that Chinnery had paid the money. And an acknowledgment seems not to be sufficient when it is only in the form of a recital, intro

1 See Vol. II. § 461, 693.

2 Ante, § 205, 209, 210, 213.

Testick's case, 2 East P. C. 925. And see Reg. v. Vaughan, 8 Car. & P. 276; Rex v. Russel, 1 Leach, 4th ed. 8.

Rex v. Martin, 7 Car. & P. 549, 1 Moody, 483, overruling Rex v. Thompson, 2 Leach, 4th ed. 910.

5

Reg. v. Houseman, 8 Car. & P. 180. If there are initials, as H. H., in place of the full name, it is necessary to aver and prove what is meant by them. Rex v. Barton, 1 Moody, 141. See Reg. v. Boardman, 2 Moody &

R. 147, 2 Lewin, 181..

6

Reg. v. Inder, 2 Car. & K. 635. So the entry of money by the cashier in the bank book of a creditor, is an accountable receipt. Rex v. Harrison, 1 Leach, 4th ed. 180, 2 East P. C. 926. For another illustration, see Rex v. Rice, 6 Car. & P. 634.

Rex v. Harvey, Russ. & Ry. 227.

7

ductory to something else.1 So the writing must show what sum, or at least that a sum, was received, and from whom; 21 and, where there is a scrip receipt for money paid on stock subscribed to a bank, and the blank for the subscriber's name is not filled up, it is not in law a receipt. The word "set

tled," at the foot of a bill of parcels, is not alone sufficient to show the bill to have been intended for a receipt, unless averments to this effect are contained in the indictment.4

$218. Where an instrument is not on its face sufficiently full to be a receipt, the defect may be supplied by showing a course of dealing between the parties in which it is understood to be and treated as such. This extrinsic matter must appear both by averment and proof. And care should be taken, that the evidence goes the necessary length, and not merely shows the writing to have been an order, or something else other than a receipt. Precisely how far the criminal law permits these deficiencies to be supplied by extrinsic evidence, the authorities do not define; but, while the doctrine may go further than above expressed in this section, it no doubt has limits.8

1

Reg. v. West, 2 Car. & K. 496, 1 Den. C. C. 258; Clark v. Newsam, 5 Railw. Cas. 69, 1 Exch. 131.

Yet see as to an order, ante, § 207, note.

* Rex v. Lyon, 2 Leach, 4th ed. 597, 2 East P. C. 933.

Rex v. Thompson, 2 Leach, 4th ed. 519. See also, on the general subject, The State v. Martin, 9 Humph. 55; People v. Hoag, 2 Parker, 36; Reg. v. Rodway, 9 Car. & P. 784; Reg. v. Frampton, 2 Car. & K. 47; Reg. v. Smith, 2 Den. C. C. 449, 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 532'; People v. Loomis, 4 Denio, 380; Commonwealth v. Williams, 9 Met. 273; Reg. v. Inder, 1 Den. C. C. 325; Rex v. Hope, 1 Moody, 414; Reg. v. Pringle, 2 Moody, 127; Kegg v. The State, 10 Ohio, 75.

• Rex c. Hunter, 2 Leach, 4th ed. 624, 2 East P. C. 928, 977.

Reg. v. Cooper, 2 Car. & K. 586.

3. See Rex v. Barton, 1 Moody, 141, and some cases mentioned in the last section.

8 See ante, § 213.

§ 218 a. Acquittance. This word is in some statutes employed in connection with the word receipt; but it requires no separate explanation.1

§ 219. Goods-Chattels.2 In the books of the law, these words are usually, not always, found together; thus, "goods and chattels." They are nearly alike in import; though chattels is the more technical word, and, in pure legal phrase, the more appropriate. Perhaps also it is the more extensive in meaning. Each of these words, in its largest sense, signifies all a man's property other than real estate; yet the word goods seems to be quite variable, and sometimes to embrace much less. But in criminal law, particularly in statutes against larceny, neither of these words has been often, or ever, understood to have the full meaning thus indicated. The general doctrine here is, that neither word comprehends choses in action; as bank-notes, mortgage deeds, and the like. It seems, also, that these words do not include any thing which circulates as money; or rather, it has been so held under some English statutes, where perhaps the question really depended on the relation the words bore to others in the enactment. And in a statute against larceny of "any goods,

1 Rex v. Martin, 7 Car. & P. 549; The State v. Martin, 9 Humph. 55; People v. Hoag, 2 Parker, 36; Reg. v. West, 1 Den. C. C. 258, 2 Car. & K. 496; Clark v. Newsam, 5 Railw. Cas. 69, 1 Exch. 131; Reg. v. Atkinson, 2 Moody, 215.

2 See Vol. II. § 297, 693.

See Bouv. Law Dict. and Burrill Law Dict. voc. Goods, Chattels, respectively, and the authorities there cited; 2 Bl. Com. 385.

The State v. Calvin, 2 Zab. 207; Commonwealth v. Swinney, 1 Va. Cas. 146; Rutherford v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. Cas. 141; Rex v. Hill, Russ. & Ry. 190; Rex v. Morris, 1 Leach, 4th ed. 468, 2 East P. C. 748; Rex v. Sadi, 1 Leach, 4th ed. 468, 2 East P. C. 748; The State v. Jim, 3 Mumph. 3.

5

Reg. v. Powell, 14 Eng. L. & Eq. 575, 2 Den. C. C. 403.

And see The State v. Foster, 3 McCord, 442.

72 East P. C. 643, 748; Rex v. Guy, 1 Leach, 4th ed. 241, 2 East P. C. 748; Rex v. Davidson, 1 Leach, 4th ed. 242, note. And see the observations of Story, J., in United States v. Moulton, 5 Mason, 537. According to