Case Name: Vincent T. Hart, plaintiff in error, vs. Conner, & Taylor (for use &c.,) defendants in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1857-01
Citations: 21 Ga. 384
Docket Number: No. 81
Parties: Vincent T. Hart, plaintiff in error, vs. Conner, & Taylor (for use &c.,) defendants in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 384–386

Head Matter:
No. 81.
Vincent T. Hart, plaintiff in error, vs. Conner, & Taylor (for use &c.,) defendants in error.
“Received from Conner & Taylor, of Macon, five hundred dollars as an advance on sundry bales of cotton, to be delivered in their warehouse within thirty days. Macon, 11th January, 1851.
(Signed.) VINCENT T. HART.
Held, That this instrument is nothing more nor less than a duo bill for money loaned.
Assumpsit, in Marion Superior Court Tried before Judge Worrill, at September Term, 1856.
This was an action brought by Conner & Taylor, plaintiffs below, against Vincent T. Hart, defendant below, upon the following instrument:
“ Received from Conner & Taylor, of Macon, five hundred dollars as an advance on sundry bales of cotton, to be delivered in their warehouse within thirty days.
Macon, 11th January, 1S51.
VINCENT T. HART.”
Defendant’s counsel objected to the admission of the instrument as evidence, on the ground that the same was void as a contract, for want of certainty in not stating the number of bales of cotton or the value of the same, and because it did not of itself show any cause of action against the defendant, which objection was overruled by the Court and the instrument read to the jury, to which ruling defendant excepted and assigns error thereon.
The plaintiff introduced no further testimony.
Defendant introduced no testimony, but requested the .Court to charge the jury that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover on the said evidence alone ; which charge the Court refused to give. To which refusal defendant excepted and assigns error thereon.
Blanford & Crawford; Wellborn; Johnson & Sloan, for plaintiff in error.
Stubbs & Hill, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.
delivering the opinion.
We see no error in the judgment of the Circuit Court. The contract in this case was sufficiently certain. It really is nothing more nor-less than a due bill for money loaned. It was an advance, to say the most of it, by Conner & Taylor for five hundred dollars to Hart upon the faith of cotton to be forwarded to them in thirty days by the defendant. If not immediately due, it certainly was at the end of the thirty days. It is for Hart to plead and prove payment in cotton or otherwise.
Judgment affirmed.