Where there is a prohibition against the issuance of bank-notes, in order to show a violation of the act where the paper in itself is not a violation of the act, an intent to do so must be shown;1 but the fact that the document did circulate as money is proof of its adaptation to that purpose.2 Sometimes the statute is directed not against the issuance of such paper, but against the putting of it in circulation.3 But the issuance of orders upon a store payable in goods,4 whether issued by the store5 or by some one else,6 or tickets upon railroads good for one trip,7 or dray tickets,8 are not violations of such acts. But even though the note be issued unlawfully, it is proof of an indebtedness,9 but the notes themselves are no consideration for a contract.10 If the holder of such unlawful bills is in pari delicto with the bank or the person or corporation issuing the bill, there can be no recovery on the debt;11 yet if there be a penalty imposed only on the person or corporation issuing the notes, the holder is not in pari delicto with the issuer.12

16 The bench that decided Darring-ton v. State Bank, supra, was practically the court that decided the Dred Scott case.

17 Bank of Commonwealth v. Clark, 4 Mo. 59; Linn v. State Bank, 2 111. 87.

1 State v. Humphreys, 2 Dev. & B. 555. But a due-bill for money is a violation of the act in itself. Hazle-ton Coal Co. v. Megargal, 4 Pa. 324.

2 Barnett v. State, 54 Ala. 579. 3Norvell v. State, 50 Ala. 174;

Downing v. State, 4 Mo. 572.

4 Durr v. State, 59 Ala. 24.

5 United States t. Van Auken, 96 U. S. 366.

6 Durr v. State, 59 Ala. 24

7United States v. Monongahela Bridge Co., Fed. Cas. No. 15,796.

8 State v. Teak, 3 Sneed, 695.

9 Parmley v. Tenth Ward Bank,

3 Edw. Ch. 395.

10 Skinner v. Deming, 2 Ind. 558; Bank of Commonwealth v. Clark,

4 Mo. 59; Pratt v. Adams, 7 Paige, 615; Doty v. Knox Co. Bank, 16 Ohio St. 133; Wilson v. Spencer, 1 Rand. 76; Hamtramck v. Selden, 12 Grat 28. See Reznor v. Hatch, 7 Ohio St. 248.

11 Thomas v. Richmond, 12 Wall. 349; Root v. Godard, 3 McLean, 102. See Sec. Sec. 27, 32, ante.

12 Atlas Bank v. Nahant Bank, 3 Met 581; Buffalo City Bank v.