the idea of a continuance or repetition of like acts. The doing of a single act of business, if it be in the exercise of a corporate function, is as much prohibited as the doing of a hundred of such acts, and is just as much opposed to the policy of the Constitution." Farrior v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 7 South. 200, 88 Ala. 275. Soliciting newspaper subscriptions. Const. art. 14, § 4, prohibits foreign corporations from doing business in the state without having at least one known place of business and an authorized agent or agents therein. Held, that the term "doing business," as used in such section, means a doing of some of the works or an exercise of some of the functions for which a corporation was created, and that soliciting or receiving subscribers for a newspaper published in another state by a corporation did not constitute a "doing business" within the state, as the term is so defined. Beard v. Union & American Pub. Co., 71 Ala. 60, 62. Soliciting stock subscriptions. "Doing business," within the meaning of Act June 17, 1852, requiring agents of foreign corporations to file a power of attorney, etc., in the county where they propose doing business, has no application to the soliciting of subscriptions to the capital stock of a foreign corporation. Payson v. Withers (U. S.) 19 Fed. Cas. 29, 30. Supplying means to another. For one person to supply the means to another to do business with or on is not the "doing of" that business by the former. United States v. American Bell Tel. Co. (U. S.) 29 Fed. 17, 18. Taking orders or making sales by agents. St. Rep. 560; Toledo Commercial Co. v. Glen The procuring in New York of orders for A foreign manufacturing corporation Tenn. 1887, c. 226, p. 386, relative to foreign DOINGS. In Rev. St. § 1156, as amended by Laws deeds, and their doings shall be valid if the Taking orders or making sales by sample by agents coming into the state from another for that purpose is not "doing business" within the state within the meaning of the foreign corporation laws. Blakeslee Mfg. Co. v. Hilton, 5 Pa. Super. Ct. 184, 191; Murphy Varnish Co. v. Connell, 32 N. Y. Supp. 492, 493, 10 Misc. Rep. 553; Crocker v. Muller, 83 N. Y. Supp. 189, 190, 40 Misc. Rep. 685; Vaughn Mach. Co. v. Lighthouse, 71 N. Y. DOLLAR. Supp. 799, 801, 64 App. Div. 138; Waller v. Rothfield, 73 N. Y. Supp. 141, 142, 36 Misc. Rep. 177; Jones v. Keeler, 81 N. Y. Supp. 648, 649, 40 Misc. Rep. 221; Ware v. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co., 9 South. 136, 137, 92 Ala. 145; Coit v. Sutton, 60 N. W. 690, 691, 102 Mich. 324, 25 L. R. A. 819; M. I. Wilcox Cordage & Supply Co. v. Mosher, 72 N. W. 117, 114 Mich. 64; Pierce Steam Heating Co. v. A. Siegel Gas Fixture Co., 60 Mo. App. 148, 155; Mershon & Co. v. Pottsville Lumber Co., 40 Atl. 1019, 1020, 187 Pa. 12, 67 Am. See "Gold Dollars." Where a seaman shipped in New Brunswick on board an American vessel for a specified voyage at an agreed rate of twentyfive dollars per month, such voyage to terminate in the United States, the words "twentyfive dollars per month" should not be construed to mean that the seaman was entitled to an amount in the currency of the United States equal to the value of the contract | Bailey v. Dilworth, 18 Miss. (10 Smedes & price in this country if paid in the currency M.) 404, 410, 48 Am. Dec. 760. of New Brunswick, but to entitle him only to the amount named in the contract in United States money. Trecartin v. The Rochambeau (U. S.) 24 Fed. Cas. 164, 165. Where, in stating the amount in a note, the word "dollars" only is used, the court will intend current money of New Jersey to be meant. Beardsley v. Southmayd, 14 N. J. Law (2 J. S. Green) 534, 543. "Dollar," as used in an indictment charging defendant with having passed a counterfeit dollar, does not import a coin coined by the mint of the United States, the Mexican dollar having been legalized by St. 1834, c. 71. Commonwealth v. Stearns, 51 Mass. (10 Metc.) 256, 257. with usuriously receiving and reserving four In an indictment charging defendant dollars for the loan and forbearance of twenty dollars, etc., the word "dollars" does not include United States bank notes; hence proof of the receipt and reservation of bank notes would not sustain the indictment. Mc Auly v. State, 15 Tenn. (7 Yerg.) 526, 528. The word "dollars" has a definite signification fixed by law, and it is laid down that when words have a known legal meaning, such, for example, as measures of quantity fixed by statute, parol evidence that the par ties intended to use them in a sense differ ent from their legal meaning, though it were still the customary and popular meaning, is not admissible. A contract made in Richmond, before the war, for the payment of so many "dollars," would not have been deem The word "dollars" imparts to the common understanding the meaning of a thing of value, and, when the charge is that defend-ed payable in bank notes, though bank notes ant stole "sixty dollars" in United States currency, it means by common understanding that that amount of money in coin, bank notes, or notes issued by the government of the United States was stolen by him. Leonard v. State, 115 Ala. 80, 82, 22 South. 564. Bank notes. "Money" is a generic term, and covers everything used by common consent as a representation of property, and passing currently from hand to hand as money, whether it be coin or paper. Bank paper is money when passed and received as such. The word "dollars" does not of necessity mean coin, for in common parlance there are paper dollars as well as silver dollars, and the word in that sense applies as well to the one as to the other. United States bank paper is payable in dollars, was lent and received as so many dollars, and an indictment charging it as "dollars" is supported by the proof that it was United States bank paper for that amount. Graham v. State, 24 Tenn. (5 Humph.) 40, 41. In Act Dec. 22, 1840, providing that the salary of the president of a certain bank should be seven hundred dollars, and the cashier's one thousand eight hundred dollars, "dollars" legally means gold or silver, and for services rendered as such officers of the bank the officers acquired the right to demand and receive in payment gold or silver, and could not lawfully be compelled to accept the depreciated paper of the banks of the state. State Bank v. Crease, 6 Ark. (1 Eng.) 292, 295. "Dollars," as used in a decree requiring an executor to account for a certain sum in dollars, means the constitutional currency of the country, and will not be held to apply to depreciated issue of worthless banks. were then the common and practically the exclusive currency, and a note made within the Confederate States must be deemed payable in specie, when that was the lawful money of the Confederate States at the time the note became payable. Omohundro's Ex'r v. Crump (Va.) 18 Grat. 703, 706. Bullion. A note promising payment in "dollars in gold and silver" is, according to any fair interpretation or the probable understanding of the parties, a note for the direct payment of money, and cannot imply an undertaking to pay bullion dollars in gold and silver, or old silver, etc. Hart v. Flynn's Ex'r, 38 Ky. (8 Dana) 190, 191. Confederate money. Where a contract made in a Confederate state during the Civil War was payable in "dollars," it was presumed in law to mean lawful money of the United States (Miller v. Lacy, 33 Tex. 351, 352; Roane v. Green, 24 Ark. 210, 214; Wilcoxen v. Reynolds, 46 Ala. 529, 532; Hansbrough v. Utz, 75 Va. 959, 962); but it could be shown by parol that the parties intended that it was to be discharged in Confederate money (Riddle v. Hill's Adm'r, 51 Ala. 224, 225; Thorington v. Smith, 75 U. S. [8 Wall.] 1, 12, 13, 19 L. Ed. 361; Confederate Note Case, 86 U. S. [19 Wall.] 548, 557, 22 L. Ed. 196; Carmichael v. White, 58 Tenn. [11 Heisk.] 262, 267). At common law, in an obligation to pay "dollars," this word would be interpreted to mean gold dollars if the contract was made in this country, but if made in a foreign country it would mean a dollar of that country, and parol evidence would be admitted to show where the contract was made, and the value of the dollar of the country where the contract was made as compared with our gold dollar. If the contract was made in the of nine-tenths pure to one-tenth alloy of each Confederate States, or where the military au- metal. Borie v. Trott (Pa.) 5 Phila. 366, 404. thorities of the Confederate government exercised control and Confederate notes con stituted the currency, this fact might be shown, and the word "dollar," unexplained in the contract, would mean a Confederate note of one dollar. Bierne v. Brown's Adm'r, 10 W. Va. 748, 758. Where a sale is made for "dollars," Confederate treasury notes are not within the term. Hill v. Erwin, 44 Ala. 661, 669. The term "dollars," in a promissory note executed in New Orleans March 26, 1862, was construed, after the close of the Civil War, to mean dollars in the lawful money of the United States, and not Confederate dollars. Cook v. Lillo, 103 U. S. 792, 793, 26 L. Ed. 460. "Dollars," as used in a promissory note executed in Georgia in 1859 and payable in 1860, in which the maker promises to pay a certain number of dollars, means dollars of the lawful money of the United States, and as it was not only executed, but came to maturity, before the civil strife began, no evidence will be permitted to give it a different signification. Stroughton v. Hill (U. S.) 23 Fed. Cas. 179, 180. In the contract for the sale of land in South Carolina during the War of the Re bellion, where it was shown that the price was $81.75 per acre, when the real value of the land in gold at that time would have been about $26.70, the word "dollars" as so used should not be construed in its ordinary limited sense to mean dollars of the United States coinage, but was intended to represent Confederate currency, which was the basis of the contract. Chalmers v. Jones. 23 S. C. 463, 466. The government note payable in "dollars" intends coined dollars of the United fineness of gold or silver, authenticated as States; a certain quantity in weight and of New York v. New York County Sup'rs, 74 such by the stamp of the government. Bank U. S. (7 Wall.) 26, 30, 19 L. Ed. 60. The term "dollar" has a known legal meaning, as much so as any other word or form of expression designating or having reference to a standard of measurement prescribed and established by law. It is a silver coin of a fixed weight and fineness, issued and made current by the authority of Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional power to that end. By the same authority other gold and silver coins are issued and made current, each as a legal equivalent of an ascertained number of dollars or fractions of a dollar. lar" may be used in a contract in a sense Undoubtedly the word "dolother than this, its statute definition, and effect will be given to it accordingly if the intention to use it in such modified sense is so evidenced that the law can take cognizance of it. Austin v. Kinsman (S. C.) 13 Rich. Eq. 259, 262. As coined dollar. When from the judgment record it appears that the complaint was upon a contract which by law was payable in coin, the term "dollars," without the prefix of “coined,” "gold," or "silver," in the subsequent parts of the record, means coined dollars. Ransford v. Marvin (N. Y.) 8 Abb. Prac. N. S. 432, 436. As descriptive of value. The term "dollar" is both the name of a It may Where land in Tennessee was sold in coin and an expression of value. 1863, and a large part of the price had been be that the phrase used is intelligible in compaid in Confederate money, the word "dol-mon parlance, but, in an indictment charging lars," as used in a note for a part of such the conversion of "nineteen thousand dolprice, should be construed to import Confed- lars" in money and in bank notes, without erate money, and the holder after the war some description of their number or denomiState v. Stimson, 24 should not recover the face value of the note nation, is insufficient. in Federal currency. Alderson v. Clear, 54 N. J. Law (4 Zab.) 9, 27. Tenn. (7 Heisk.) 667. As coin of certain weight. A contract to pay a certain number of “dollars" in gold or silver coin is an agreement to deliver a certain weight of standard gold, to be ascertained by a count of coins, each of which is certified to contain a definite proportion of that weight. Bronson v. Rodes, 74 U. S. (7 Wall.) 229, 250, 19 L. Ed. 141. Taking the definition from the statute book, “dollar” is a silver coin weighing 4121⁄2 grains, or a gold coin weighing 254/ grains, The term "dollar" is an expression of value as well as the name of a coin, and hence the word "dollar" is uncertain as a description, since it may be used to denote a number of cents or dimes, as well as a dollar proper, but is certain as an expression of value. State v. Barr, 38 Atl. 817, 61 N. J. Law, 131. An information for robbery, describing the property as "twenty-five dollars in money," does not show that the property taken was of any value: "Twenty-five dollars in money" may, it is true, mean gold or silver coin of the United States or treasury notes, or any other denomination known and used and which circulates as money, or it may mean only some paper such as state bank bills or Confederate money or bills purporting to be of the value of $25. State v. Segermond, 19 Pac. 370, 372, 40 Kan. 107, 10 Am. St. Rep. 169. In an indictment alleging a corrupt offer to give two dollars for the vote of a certain person, the word "dollars" will be understood to mean a specific sum of money, or money the value of which is fixed by the law of the United States, and sufficient without a further allegation, though "two dollars" was a value. State v. Downs, 47 N. E. 670, 671, 148 Ind. 324. "Dollars" and "cents" have a well-recognized meaning as commonly used. The common definition is the unity of money by which values of commodities are measured. It is thus apparent that a defendant must have understood that he was charged with having in his possession, custody, and control money of the amount and value specified by the allegation in an indictment charging him with having in his possession and control a certain number of "dollars" and "cents." People v. Lammerts, 58 N. E. 22, 23, 164 N. Y. 137. A contract for the payment of a certain sum of money in "silver or gold dollars" has no greater effect than if it had been to pay in the "lawful money of the country," and an offer of anything made legal tender money is a compliance with the contract. A paper dollar having been made equal to a gold dollar, it must be accepted as such in satisfaction of any contract for the payment of money, and no form or force of words can be used by contracting parties to give to a gold dollar a legal value as money above a paper dollar. A dollar is one hundred cents, no more, no less, whether it is silver, gold, or paper; and, when Congress declares that a paper dollar shall be current and pass for and represent and be of the value of one hundred cents, for all purposes of traffic and paying debts it becomes the equivalent of one hundred cents in any other Wilson v. Morgan, 27 N. substance or form. Y. Super Ct. (4 Rob.) 58, 68. "Dollars," as used in a will containing a direction to invest twenty thousand dollars in some safe investment for the daughter of the testator, means the legal currency of the United States, and it does not mean dollars invested in bonds or stocks, either at the market or par value, or at the original cost to the testator. Halsted v. Meeker's Ex'rs, An indictment charging that the defend-18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Green) 136, 139. ant stole "sixty dollars of the current gold coin" of the United States is equivalent to saying "sixty pieces of gold coin, called sixty dollars," there being in our money a piece of gold coin called a "dollar." McKane v. State, 11 Ind. 195. As legal tender. "Dollars," in a note payable in dollars, means legal money. Hightower v. Maull, 50 Ala. 495, 496. A note payable in "dollars" can only be discharged by a payment or tender of legal tender funds. Lang v. Waters' Adm'r, 47 Ala. 624, 635. The term "dollars," in a judgment for so many dollars, is to be understood as meaning dollars in legal money. Ex parte Norton, 44 Ala. 177, 189. "Dollars," in a check, meant dollars in lawful money of the United States, and could not be explained by verbal agreement, custom, or any mercantile or other usage, to mean otherwise. Howes v. Austin, 35 Ill. 396, 398. When a contract calls for the payment of a certain number of "dollars," without designating any particular kind of money, the presumption is that legal tender dollars are meant; but this presumption may be rebutted by showing that some other kind was intended. Taylor v. Bland, 60 Tex. 29, 30. 3 WDS. & P.-11 When it is provided that a payment shall be made in dollars, the meaning is manifest. The necessities of social and commercial intercourse, as well as the rules of evidence, require that ordinary words should be understood according to their common and ordinary acceptation; consequently, when an order or bill of exchange or any writing provides that payment shall be made in "dollars," it means lawful currency of the United States of America. Hinnemann v. Rosenbank, 39 N. Y. 98, 104. In construing a contract made in one of the rebellious states in 1864, requiring the payment of a certain sum in dollars and cents, it was said on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction that the legal meaning of the terms "dollars" and "cents" is specie-that is, gold or silver or whatever thing or article or paper the laws of the United States declared lars in the note mean specie or legal tender to be a legal tender, and that the word dolnotes of the United States. Miller v. Lacy, 33 Tex. 351, 353. In the construction of statutes the word "money" or "dollars" shall be construed to Rev. Code Del. 1893, c. 5, § 1, subd. 15. mean lawful money of the United States. An indictment charging the theft of "silver dollars in coin" will be presumed to mean United States silver dollars. Kirk v. State, 32 S. W. 1045, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 224. Dog. "Domestic animals," as used in Civ. Code, § 5883, authorizing the General As sembly to "impose a tax upon such domestic animals as from their nature and habits are destructive of other property," includes dogs, a dog being so classified by the fundamental law of the state. Wilcox v. State, 28 S. E 981, 101 Ga. 563, 39 L. R. A. 709. Evidently the word "dollar," as employed in the federal Constitution, means the money recognized and established in the express power vested in Congress to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, the framers of the Constitution having borrowed and adopted the word as used by the Continental Congress. In the ordinance of the 6th of July, 1785, and the 8th of August, 1786, it was enacted that the money unit of the United States should be "Domestic animals," as used in Rev. St. $1, and that the money of account should c. 127, § 1, imposing a penalty for the killing be dollars and fractions of dollars as sub- or wounding of domestic animals, means anisequently established in the ordinance estab-mals that in their domestic state furnish lishing a mint. Per Clifford, J., dissenting some support to the family or add to the in Legal Tender Cases, 79 U. S. (12 Wall.) wealth of the community, and does not in457, 623, 20 L. Ed. 287. clude dogs. State v. Harriman, 75 Me. 562, 564, 46 Am. Rep. 423. DOLLS.-DOLS. "Dols." is in common use to express dollars, and its signification is well understood; and it is no objection to a verdict that the jury assessed the judgment at a fine of "ten dols." against each defendant. Short v. State (Tex.) 29 S. W. 1073. “Dolls.” is an abbreviation for “dollars," and, when used at the top of columns of figures in an assessment roll, is sufficient information that the figures appearing on the roll under the same were employed to indicate that they meant so many dollars. Linck v. City of Litchfield, 31 N. E. 123, 125, 126, 141 Ill. 469; Salisbury v. Shirley, 5 Pac. 104, 106, 66 Cal. 223. DOMAIN. See "National Domain"; "Public Domain." Domain is "the ownership of land; immediate or absolute ownership; paramount or ultimate ownership; an estate or patrimony which one has in his own right; land of which one is absolute owner." People v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645, 658 (quoting Burrill, DOME-SHAPED. By the claim of reissued patent No. 10,418, for improvements in ship's pumps, to a "Domesticated animals," within the meaning of Pen. Code, art. 733, which provides that the term "personal property" shall include all domesticated animals, when of some specific value, includes dogs, and therefore a dog may be the subject of theft, under statutes defining theft as the fraudulent taking of corporeal personal property. Hurley 28 Am. St. Rep. 916. See, also, State v. Sumv. State, 17 S. W. 455, 457, 30 Tex. App. 333, ner, 2 Ind. 377, 378. The word "domestic," as employed in a statute for the incorporation of associations for the improvement of breeds of domestic animals, means "belonging to the house," and hence includes a dog. People v. Campbell (N. Y.) 4 Parker, Cr. R. 386, 393. |