
    The State v. James Dalton.
    From Rutherford.
    A paper writing, in these words, “ Received of J. B. Ms booh account m “full — J. Lis a receipt for money, within the act of 1801, c. 6 — it being proved, that at the day it bears date, J. D. was indebted to J. L. in a sum of money upon open account. So likewise these words, “ Received the above in full,” at the foot of an account.
    All debts are to be understood as received or paid in money, unless explained by some other circumstance.
    This was an indictment for forgery, unde,r the act of Assembly passed in 1801, c. 6, and charged that the prisoner forged a certain acquittance and receipt for money, in the words and figures following, that is to say, 44 September- “ Sd, 1816 — Received of James Dalton his book account ire •‘full — John Logan,” with intent to defraud said Logan. .It was proved, upon the trial, that on the 3d September, 1816, the prisoner was indebted to Logan in the sum of seven dollars, by book account, for which he was warranted, and judgment obtained before a justice of the peace. The prisoner then warranted Logan for the same money, alleging that he had before paid it; and, in proof thereof, lie offered the said paper writing in evidence. The Jury found the prisoner guilty j and he moved for a rule for a new trial, upon the ground that the said paper writing was not an acquittance or receipt for money, within the meaning of the statute, which was refused, and sentence passed on the prisoner ; who appealed therefrom to this Court.
    The case was submitted without argument.
   Taxi.ob. Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The sole question is, whether the paper writing which the prisoner has been convicted of forging, is a receipt for money, within the act of 1801, c. 6. The necessary effect of setting up sue!) a paper against Logan, provided it were genuine, was to discharge the prisoner from all such demands of Logan, as come within the denomination of a book account. To acknowledge' the receipt of a book account in full, is equivalent to an acknowledgement, that the amount of the account has been paid. Had the paper omitted the words “ in full” its meaning would have been equivocal, and it might have been difficult to pronounce, whether Logan had received a book account belonging to Dalton or himself; that is, a book account kept by Dalton against Logan, or payment of an account which Logan exhibited against Dalton. But the language in which it is expressed, leaves no doubt that it purports to be-a receipt or acknowledgement of payment on the part of Logan of his account against Dalton. Is it, then, to be understood as a receipt for money ? An account is a register of facts relating to money, which, when kept in a book, is thence called a hook account. Money has become the universal instrument of commerce, by the intervention of which goods of all kinds are bought and sold. Accounts are kept in money j and a creditor may always exact it in preference to any commodify. When debts are paid in money, it is according to the usual mode of business j when they are paid in any thing else, it is in consequence of some special agreement of ihe parties. When one says, he lias paid or received a debt, we understand, without further explanation, that he lias paid or received it in money. If a creditor put at the foot of an account, ei Received the above in full,” we infer that he has received the money, because the account is so kept. It would be doing violence to the import of language, and to our understanding of the settled mode of transacting business, to construe this receipt in any other manner. The Law must bear' upon the dealings of men, in the way of their daily course and practice ; but if this paper be not a receipt for money, then all the purposes of forgery may be successfully accomplished, without incurring the penalty of the crime. A paper shall he available as a receipt for money, because it is so understood by every man who reads it; still as it omits the word money, it does not come within the statute!

We think the conviction is proper, and that the judgment of the Law, as prescribed in the act of 1801, c. 6, ought to be passed on the prisoner.

Let that opinion be certified to the Superior Court of Rutherford.  