Case Name: Gentry vs. The State
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1832-07
Citations: 3 Yer. 451
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gentry vs. The State.
Judges: Catron, J. dissented. ’
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
Gentry vs. The State.
Pledging a counterfeit note, which was to be redeemed at a future day, is not a passing, within the meaning of the act of assembly creating the offence.
This indictment was for feloniously and fraudulently passing a North Carolina treasury ticket, for seventy-five cents, knowing it to be forged.
The defendant below, went to a still house inM’-Minn county, to purchase some whiskey, and offered the note of seventy-five cents in question, in payment; he was told it was a spurious note, and the evidence in ihe cause showed that he knew it was a counterfeit. The person of whom he purchased the whiskey, not knowing whether it was a good note or not, proposed if he would pledge it for fifty cents, he might have the whiskey, and that he could redeem it in a few days; this was agreed to, and the note was thus pledged, the defendant agreeing to redeem it in a few days.
The court charged the jury, that if they believed the defendant, Gentry, knew the money was counterfeit, putting it in pledge for fifty cents was a passing within the meaning of the law.
The jury found the defendant guilty; judgment was rendered on this finding, from which an appeal in error was prayed and granted to this court.
Meigs, for the plaintiff in error.
J. R. Nelson, Atto. Gen. for the State.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
We dissent from the charge of the circuit court. Pledging or depositing the note is not a payment or passing, in legal acceptation, or within the meaning of the act of assembly; and the words of the statute must not be extendedbeyond port to make out the offence. their legal im-
Catron, J. dissented. '
Judgment reversed.