Leavitt v. Leavitt
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Is an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note for more than twenty dollars, given in the year 1799, the defendant objected tí» the competency of the note as evidence to the jury, because it was not stamped according to the act-of Congress of July 6,1797, nor had the plaintiff paid the duty of ten dollars and obtained the certificate of the collector, under the act oi.Bpril 6, 1802. But the Chief Justice, before whom the cause was tried, admitted the note in evidence, and…
Read the full summary
Is an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note for more than twenty dollars, given in the year 1799, the defendant objected tí» the competency of the note as evidence to the jury, because it was not stamped according to the act-of Congress of July 6,1797, nor had the plaintiff paid the duty of ten dollars and obtained the certificate of the collector, under the act oi.Bpril 6, 1802. But the Chief Justice, before whom the cause was tried, admitted the note in evidence, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiffs subject to the opinion of the court. cited Edeck v. Ranuer 2 Johns. 423.…
1Opinion of the Court
Mellen C. J.
delivered the opinion of the court as follows.
'The act of Congress ofvJuly 6, 1797, laying duties on stamped vellum, parchment and paper, provides, in the 13th section, that “ no such deed, instrument or writing shall be pleaded or given “in evidence in any court, or admitted in any court tobe available in law or equity, until it shall be stamped as aforesaid.” That act remained'in force until JLpril 6, 1802, on which day it was repealed by the act entitled “ an act to repeal the internal taxesin the first section of which there is the following proviso, viz. “ Provided; that for…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Makainai v. Goo Wan HoyHawaii Supreme Court · 1903