Haight v. . Grist
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oivil action upon a bond, tried before Jones, J., at •Spring Term 1870, of Beaueobt Court. The answer relied upon the defence of set off. Upon the plaintiffs offering the bond in evidence, the defendant objected to its being read, because it was not stamped.
Read the full summary
Oivil action upon a bond, tried before Jones, J., at •Spring Term 1870, of Beaueobt Court. The answer relied upon the defence of set off. Upon the plaintiffs offering the bond in evidence, the defendant objected to its being read, because it was not stamped. Thereupon, -the plaintiff moved that he be allowed to stamp it then, alleging that when it was executed neither party had a stamp, that it was not convenient then to procure one, and also, that the defendant, the maker, had authorized him to procure, affix and deface a stamp. The Court allowed the stamp to be affixed and defaced, and then…
1Opinion of the Court
Bead®, J.
No objection is made to the validity of the bond sued upon, excepting that it was not duly stamped when offered in the evidence; as, it was alleged by the defendant, was required by the United States Bevenue Act of 1866, ch. 184, s. 9.
That act provides that “no deed, instrument, writing or paper required by law to be stamped, which has been signed or issued without being duly stamped or with a deficient, stamp, nor any copy thereof, shall be recorded, or admitted, or used as evidence in any Court, until a legal stamp de noting the amount of tax, shall have been affixed thereto, as>…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Meehan v. BarryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
3Cited by7 opinions
- Small v. SlocumbSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Crane v. ReederMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Ratliff v. Ratliff.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
- Farmers Savings Bank v. NeelSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Watson v. MirikeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.