There are a lot of disagreement on validity of the pawning of bills. Some scholars consider it valid and some do not. The authors believe that we should refer to usage to find the definitions of the property and financial value of it since they are conventional expressions and no certain definitions of them can be found in legal texts. There are many evidences from the usage which prove that the bill is not considered simply some kind of document in usage but in fact some form of property and even material kind, since it is tangible, the bill may be named as material property. The authors view on the topic is that the definition of material property is logically the same as the definition of concrete object. Consequently, it may be said that the bill is a concrete object therefore its pawning must be considered valid. If some rational aim can be found for pawning of bills as in fact there are some, the pawning of it is valid otherwise not.