Lowe v. Murphy

¶1*340By the Court.

¶2delivering the opinion.

¶3[1.] If the instrument declared on by the plaintiff is, in con-.temptation of law, a due bill, then it may be declared on as a promissory note. Kemball vs. Huntingdon, 10 Wendell’s Rep. 675. By transposing the words of the instrument, without altering its legal effect, it will read as follows: “ Due Benjamin F. Lowe, for the benefit of B. F. White, four hundred and seventy-five dollars, for his tan yard and stock, purchased of B. F. White, and fifty-three dollars and fifty cents for one note of hand which is said to be lost or mislaid — each amount bearing interest from 1st January, 1845. (Signed,) JOHN A. SCOTT.

¶4“ Sept. 23, 1847.”

¶5The inquiry is, does this paper import an engagement that money shall be paid absolutely? F it does, no matter by what words, it is a good note. Luqueen vs. Prossen, 1 Hill’s N. Y. Rep. 259. In Brewer vs. Brewer, (6 Ga. Rep. 588,) we held the following instrument to be a due bill:

¶6“ I do hereby acknowledge the credit of three hundred and thirty-two dollars and fifty cents, to be due to the estate of Drewry Brewer, deceased. (Signed,) Clare Brewer.

¶7“ August 5th, 1847.”

¶8See also Carey vs. McDougald, 7 Ga. Rep. 85.

¶9We are of the opinion the paper declared on by the plaintiff imports an engagement to pay money, and states also the consideration for that engagement, and is a due bill in contemplation of law, and may be declared on as a promissory note. The amendment offered by the plaintiff to his declaration ought to have been allowed.

¶10Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.