Case Name: James Wallace vs. Thomas J. Dyson
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1842-11
Citations: 1 Speers 127
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Wallace vs. Thomas J. Dyson.
Judges: Richardson, O’Neall, Evans, Bdtler, and Wardlaw, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 127–128

Head Matter:
James Wallace vs. Thomas J. Dyson.
1. A promissory note under the statute of Anne, must be for the payment of money || only.
2. The mere statement of the consideration, as “ for the hire of negroes during the present year,” would not invalidate a paper as a promissory note; but where three out of four of the instruments on which assumpsit was brought, contained other stipulations, as to furnish clothing, pay taxes, not to pay physician’s bills, &c. Held, that they could not be declared on as promissory notes. They were mere agreements, and must be sued on as such. See Peay vs. Pickett, 1 N. & M’C. 154; Twitty ads. Todd, 1 ib. 261; Jerome vs. Whitney, 7 J. R. 321; Gaines vs. Kendrick, 2 C. R. (Mill) 339. As one of the instruments sustained tire action, the plaintiffhad leave to amend his declaration as to the others.
Before Earle, J., at Newberry, Fall Term, 1842.
Assumpsit. The plaintiff declared upon several instruments of writing as promissory notes, under the statute of Anne. They were promises in writing by the defendant, on or before a day certain, to pay the plaintiff or bearer, a stipulated sum, for the hire of certain negroes, (naming them,) for a particular year, and also to furnish clothes and pay taxes, <fcc. It was objected for the defendant, that these were mere agreements, and that the plaintiff could not recover upon them as notes of hand under his declaration. The presiding Judge overruled the objection, and the plaintiff had a verdict.
The defendant appealed, on the ground,
That the notes declared upon as promissory notes, are not promissory notes under the statute of Anne, inasmuch as they contain other stipulations besides the promises to pay money; and his Honor the presiding Judge erred in charging the jury that they were such promissory notes.
Pope, for the motion,
cited Baily on Bills, 9 chap. 4; Strange, 1271; Chitty on Bills, 55, 8 chap. 3; also, pp. 59, 429, 430 ; 2 Stark. Rep. 375 ; Chev. 91; 2 Mill C. R. 339; 1 M’Cord, 115.
J. J. Caldwell, contra.
The distinction of this case is, that nothing but the money is claimed. The clothes were to be given to the negroes.

Opinion:
Curia, per
Earle, J.
It is an essential quality of a pro missory note under the statute, that it should be for the payment of money only, and not for the payment of money land the performance of some other act. It was so held in Martin vs. Chauntry, Str. 1271, which has been followed ever since. The statement of the consideration as " for the hire of negroes, (naming them,) for the present year," would in no degree invalidate the paper as a promissory note. But three out of four of the instruments sued on, contain other stipulations, to furnish clothing, pay taxes, not to pay physician's bills, and the like. These are mere agreements, and must be sued on as such.
The motion for a new trial is granted. As one of the instruments sustains the action, the plaintiff has leave to amend his declaration as to the others.
Richardson, O'Neall, Evans, Bdtler, and Wardlaw, JJ. concurred.