Ritchey v. Armour Fertilizer Works

1. The suit was upon a note for the purchase-price of certain guano. A-plea setting up that the sacks containing the guano did not have attached to them the tags which section 1793 of the Civil Code of 1910 required to be used, and that by reason of the failure to affix the tags the State was being defrauded of its revenue, and that for that reason the contract was void, constitutes'no defense to an action upon the note.

2. “Section 1793 is purely a revenue measure . .. The law recognizes the fact that the tags may become detached from the packages in the ordinary course of trade and…