Case Name: The State vs. John Wilson
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1814-11
Citations: 2 Tread 495
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State vs. John Wilson.
Judges: Justices Smith, Colcock, Gkimkk and Bay- con-eurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 495–497

Head Matter:
Columbia;
November Term, 1814.
The State vs. John Wilson.
O’Neal, for the Motion.
Stake, Solicit. Contra.
By the act of 1736 — 7 fVony^'t© ^rantf bm> ?r ry note, ment^or ^p^yment of any money being-the of any^ther person ' or persons,” The steal-¡ng- ofa of"anin-eluded, it m excep-the Met. d®scribes the hill «as a promissory note,” ■ instead of as “ a bank-bill. Though “ promissory note” and “ bank-bill” are not convertible terms, since every promissory note is not a bank bill; yet, every bank-bill is a promissory note.
Mot on for a new trial.
This was an indictment for larceny in stealing a promissory note, of “ The president, directors, and company of the bank of South-Carolina,” payable to a certain person therein named, or bearer: (the sum of five dollars,) signed by the president and cashier of the said bank company. It was contended at the trial, that the paper in question, charged to have been stolen, was not an article or ° . . , . thing, the taking of which, under any circumstances, would amount to larceny.
This objection was overruled at the trial: and the ... ... . „ . Same has again been insisted upon, m support of the present motion. It has been contended, that the promissory note, laid in the indictment, is a bank bill, and ought to have been so denominated; and that a bank bill is a different thing from a pro mis-sory note. Also, that the act of assembly of 1736 — 7, could not have had bank bills in contemplation, as at ... .... . that time there was no bank m existence within this , State.

Opinion:
Brevard,. J.
Promissory notes and bank bills are not to be sure convertible terms. Every promissory note is not a bank bill; but every bank bill is a promissory note. The president, directors, & co. of the Bank of South Carolina, compose a body-corporate, and may make contracts. If they were not incorporated, but were associated merely as a partnership, they would be competent to issue promissory notes.
The acts of 1736 — 7, make it felony u to steal any warrant, bill, or promissory note for the payment, or securing the payment, of any money ; being the property of any other person or persons, &c." Before this law was passed, notes of hand, &c. being ehoses in action, and not considered as valuable in themselves, -were not deemed property, the stealing of which could be felony. But this act puts them on the same footing as the money they are meant to secure. (1 Hawk 93. 2 East's P. C. 597. 4 Black. Com. 234.) To steal the security is as penal as to take the money secured.
Our act of Assembly is nearly copied from the stat. 2d Geo. 2, c. 25. " Bank bills" are mentioned in the English statute, but omitted in our act. But all the different descriptions of ehoses in action are considered as representing the money they are severally intended to secure, and are not regarded as chattels. (2 East's P. C. 600, 601.)
The indictment in the present case, follows one of the descriptions of property mentioned in the act; and the evidence produced, namely,' the bank bill, (as it is called,) proved the description to all intents and purposes. And although bank bills, eo nomine, might not have been in the view of the Legislature, when the act was passed, as there was no bank established in this country at that time ; yet it certainly was the intention of the act to protect every species of property of that nature. (Leach's C. L. 798.)
The bank bill in question comes completely within the description of a promissory, note for thb payment of money." I am, therefore, of opinion that the motion should be denied.
Justices Smith, Colcock, Gkimkk and Bay- con-eurred.