7. Or a covenan to pay an annuity dissolution without an agreement stamp. as a consideration for relinquishing a May v. Smith, 1 Esp. 283. Kenyon, business and the use of premises. Ly-C. J. 1795. burn v. Warrington, 1 Stark. 162. lenborough, C. J. 1816.

El

8. An acknowledgment, whereby the obligor admits that he has broken the condition, and promises to pay a certain sum in satisfaction, is evidence of the breach without a stamp. Ibid.

16. But it has been since held that the notice of dissolution may be read without a stamp. Jenkins and another v. Blizard and another, 1 Stark. 417. Ellenborough, C. J. 1816.

17. A contract of marriage requires no stamp. Orford v. Cole, 2 Stark. See ante, BILLS AND NOTES, A. (a) 351. Bayley, J. Lancaster, 1818.

B. AGREEMENT.

9. A written wager, doubled by an indorsement, requires two stamps. Robson v. Hall, Peake, 127. Kenyon, C. J. 1792.

10. But if there be one stamp only, the instrument is evidence of the first wager. Ibid.

And see Henfree v. Bromley, 6 East, 309; S. C. 2 Smith, 400; French v. Patton, 9 East, 351.

And the justices at Lancaster (Richards, C. B. and Bayley, J.) discharged a rule for a new trial. Ibid.

18. An agreement made between merchants residing within 50 miles of each other, for the share of the outfit of a ship and of the adventure, requires a stamp. Leigh et all. v. Banner, 1 Esp. 403. Kenyon, C. J. 1795.

19. An instrument produced by the adverse party under a notice, cannot be given in evidence as an agreement between such party and a stranger, unless 11. Where a schoolmaster seeks to it be stamped. Doe d. St. John v. recover beyond the actual period of Hore, 2 Esp. 724. Kenyon, C. J. 1799. schooling, on the ground of removal 20. Where the parties signed an unwithout notice, according to the terms stamped agreement, and the plaintiff, of a prospectus delivered to the defen- before action brought, tendered to the dant, the identical copy of the prospectus defendant an engrossment of the agreedelivered to the defendant must be pro- ment properly stamped, which the latduced stamped. Williams v. Stoughton, ter refused to execute, the master was 2 Stark. 292. Ellenborough, C. J. directed to include the stamping of the original agreement in the costs of the 12. In an action by a broker for action. Bowen v. Pitman, gent. 2 Esp. commission, a prospectus of plaintiff's 728. Kenyon, C. J. 1799. terms of doing business, though acted upon, is not evidence of the agreement itself, but is functus officio before the parol contract is entered into, and requires no stamp. Edgar v. Blick, 1 Stark. 464. Ellenborough, 1816.

1817.

13. An agreement made, and bearing date, at sea, may be given in evidence without a stamp. Ximenes v. Jaques, 1 Esp. 311. Kenyon, C. J. 1795.

S. C. not S. P. 6 T. R. 499.

14. Where a contract is signed by one party, and, previously to the accession of the other party, a new stipulation is inserted, the agreement is single and entire, and requires but one stamp. Knight v. Crockford, 1 Esp. 189. Eyre,

C. J. 1794.

15. The instructions for advertising a dissolution of partnership in the gazette, cannot be read to prove the fact of the

21. Where premises are held under an unstamped agreement, the landlord cannot enter into parol evidence of the demise. Brewer v. Palmer, 3 Esp. 213. Eldon, C. J. 1800.

Acc. Rex v. Inhabitants of St. Paul's, Bedford, 6 T. R. 452.

Sed vide Alves v. Hodson, 7 T. R. 241.

And see White v. Wilson, 2 Bos. & Pul. 118; Hodges v. Drakeford, 1 N. R. 272, 3.

22. Where a verbal contract for the

sale of goods is afterwards put into writing by the vendor's agent for the purpose of assisting his recollection, but the memorandum is not signed by the vendee, it need not be produced. Dalison v. Stark, 4 Esp. 163. Ellenborough, C. J. 1802.

23. If a paper be produced with a

single stamp, and it appear to have part 1. page 600, 55 Geo. III. cap. 184, contained originally two distinct agree-schedule, part 1, contain the same exments, one of which is erased, the emption. See, in Curry v. Edensor, 3 stamp is prima facie sufficient; and it T. R. 524, a similar decision on the lies upon the opposite party to shew exemption in 23 Geo. III. cap. 58, rethat both agreements were on the paper specting the guarantee of a present sale. at the time the stamp was affixed. But see Waddington v. Bristow, 2 Waddington v. Francis, 5 Esp. 182. Bos. & Pul. 452; Buxton v. Bedall, 3 Ellenborough, C. J. 1804. East, 303; Venning v. Leckie, 13 East, 7. 24. An unstamped agreement is valid 29. Two parts of an agreement were as far as it relates to the sale of goods, each signed by plaintiff and defendant. though it contain stipulations uncon-One part stamped was in the possession nected with the contract of sale. Heron of the latter, who had notice to produce. v. Granger, 5 Esp. 269. Ellenborough, The unstamped part was received as C. J. 1805. secondary evidence of the agreement. Vide tamen Norton v. Simmes, Moor, Waller v. Horsfall, 1 Campb. 501. El856, 4th resolution; S. C. Hob. 14; lenborough, C. J. 1808. Lexington v. Clarke, 2 Vent. 223; Chaters v. Beckett, 7 T. R. 201; Ames v. Hill, 2 Bos. & Pul. 150; post. C. pl. 38, 39, 40.

And see Garnons v. Swift, 1 Taunt. 507, 8, n.

30. In an action for not delivering goods manufactured by the defendant, in 25. Assumpsit for the price of a gun, pursuance of an order from the plaintiff, upon contract to receive another and 15 a memorandum signed by the plaintiff guineas to boot. The other gun had only, describing the nature and quantity been delivered, but afterwards borrowed of the goods, but not specifying the price, by defendant. Held, that a letter from may be given in evidence without a the defendant might be read to prove stamp; and the acceptance of the order the borrowing without a stamp, but not by the defendant, and the precise terms to prove the contract. Forsyth and of the contract, may be proved by other others v. Jervis, 1 Stark. 437. Ellen- evidence. Ingram v. Lea, 2 Campb. borough, C. J. 1816.

26. But a stipulation for rescinding a former agreement for the sale of goods, is itself within the exemption. Whitworth v. Crockett and another, 2 Stark. 431. Abbott, C. J. 1818.

521. Ellenborough, C. J. 1810.

31. An agreement made in a foreign country, cannot be received in evidence here, if it appear, that by the laws of that country, the instrument would not be available there for want of a stamp. Clegg v. Levy, 3 Campb. 166. Ellenborough, C. J. 1812.

27. "I promise to pay A. B. 651. and also all other sums which may be due to him," requires an agreement stamp. Smith and wife, administrators of Eastling, v. Nightingale, 2 Stark. S. 87, 90. 375. Ellenborough, C. J. 1818.

S. P. Alves v. Hodgson, 7 T. R. 241.
And see Snaith v. Mingay, 1 M. &

C. RECEIPTS.

32. But until the law of the country 28. An undertaking to guarantee the is distinctly proved, it will be presumed payment of goods to be furnished to that no stamp is necessary. Clegg v. third persons, falls within the exception Levy, ubi supra. contained in 44 Geo. III. cap. 98. schedule A. p. 200, in favour of any memorandum, letter, or agreement, made for, or relating to, the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandizes. Warrington et alt. v. Furber and Warrington, 6 Esp. 89. Ellenborough, C. J. 1806. And the court discharged a rule for a new trial. 8 East, 242.

S. P. Watkins v. Vince, 2 Stark. 368. Ellenborough, C. J. 1818.

N. 48 Geo. III. cap. 149. schedule,

33. A bill of parcels subscribed "settled by two bills, one at nine, and the other at twelve, months," requires a receipt stamp. Smith v. Kelly, Peake, 25 n. Ellenborough, C. J. 1803.

34. Or an agreement stamp. S. C. as reported, 4 Esp. 249.

35. An acknowledgment of having received acceptances, accompanied with T

an undertaking to provide for them, re- cannot shew that the note was not quires a receipt stamp. Scholey v. stamped when made, though the comWalsby, Peake, 24. Kenyon, C. J. missioners have exceeded their autho1790. rity in affixing the stamp. Wright and others v. Riley, Peake, 173. Kenyon, C. J. 1793.

N. Qu. Or a note, or agreement stamp? Vide ante, BILLS AND NOTES, pl. 1.

36. If a tradesman write "settled," under his bill, and put his initials, he incurs the penalty for giving a receipt without a stamp. Spawforth, qui tam, v. Alexander, 2 Esp. 621. Kenyon,

C. J. 1798.

And see Rer v. Episcopum Cestriensem, 1 Stra. 624; S. C. 8 Mod. 364, more fully; sed vide post, E. 66; Snaith v. Mingay, 1 M. and S. 87.

44. Where a creditor is paid in an unstamped draft, he may sue for his original demand, though he have neg37. Semble, that an unstamped re-lected to present the draft for payment. ceipt may be used by a witness who Ruff v. Webb, 1 Esp. 129. Kenyon, saw the money paid and the receipt C. J. 1794. given, to refresh his memory.

Ram- 45. Where a note is void for want of bert v. Cohen, 4 Esp. 213. Ellenbo- a stamp, the plaintiff may go into evirough, C. J. 1802. dence of the consideration. Wilson v.

1714.

S. P. Tyte v. Jones, 1 East, 58, n. And see Puckford v. Maxwell, 6 T. R. 52; Alves v. Hodgson, 7 T. R. 241; White v. Wilson, 2 Bos. & Pul. 118.

38. A receipt given on a receipt Kennedy, 1 Esp. 245. Kenyon, C. J. stamp, is not invalidated by the addition of matter which requires an agreement stamp, where the words added do not control or qualify the terms of the receipt. Grey v. Smith and another, sheriff of Middlesex, 1 Campb. 388. Ellenborough, C. J. 1808.

And see ante, B. 24; Corder v. Drakeford, 3 Taunt. 382.

46. But where such a draft is given in payment of a demand, upon which the credit does not expire till the day appointed for the payment of the bill, 39. A stamped receipt for the price the creditor cannot sue before the day. of a horse "warranted sound," is evi-Swears v. Wells, 1 Esp. 317. Kenyon, dence of the warranty, without an agree- C. J. 1795.

1810.

ment stamp. Skrine v. Elmore, 2 47. Held, that a promissory note upon Campb. 407. Ellenborough, C. J. a receipt stamp, imposed by the same statute which imposed the duty on 40. S. P. said to have been ruled in notes, is valid. Aitcheson v. Sharland, Brown v. Frye, ibid. Lawrence, J.1 Esp. 292. Kenyon, C. J. 1795. Devon, 1809.

And see 2 Atk. 135.

Cont. Manning v. Livie, Bayl. 37; Chamberlain v. Porter, 1 N. R. 30. 41. A receipt for money paid to de- N. 37 Geo. III. cap. 136. s. 1. and puty receivers general requires no stamp, 43 Geo. III. cap. 127. s. 5. do not exthough it be signed by their clerk. tend to bills, notes, or cheques. But Edden v. Read, 3 Campb. 338. El-see 43 Geo. III. сар. 127. s. 6. lenborough, C. J. 1813. 48. In an action by indorsee against

42. Where the indorsements on a indorser, where the bill was originally bond have left no space for receipts upon made payable to the defendant only, subsequent payments, such receipts writ-without the words "or to his order,' ten on plain paper, annexed to the bond which were added by the drawer subsemay be read in evidence. Orme v. Young, 4 Campb. 336. Gibbs, C. J. 1815.

D. BILLS AND NOTES.

(And see ante, BILLS AND NOTES, A. (c))

43. If a promissory note be produced with a proper stamp, the defendant

quently to the indorsement, it was held, that the bill was not invalidated by the alteration. Kershaw et alt. v. Cox, 3 Esp. 246. Le Blanc, J. 1800, and K. B. H. 1801.

And see Cole v. Parkin, 12 East, 471, 5; Bathe v. Taylor, 15 East, 412.

49. So a promissory note, before it is negotiated, may be converted into a bill

of exchange in furtherance of the ori-stamp. Scholey v. Walsby, Peake, 24. ginal intention of the parties. Webber Kenyon, C. J. 1790,

v. Robert Maddocks, 3 Campb. 1. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811.

50. A bill altered from three to four months, before acceptance, with the consent of the drawer, does not require a new stamp. Kennerly v. Nash, 1 Stark. 452. Ellenborough, C. J. 1816.

51. A cheque on a banker postdated, and delivered before the day on which it bears date, though not intended to be used before that day, required a stamp under 31 Geo. III. cap. 25. s. 4. Allen v. Keeves, 3 Esp. 281. Kenyon, C. J. 1801.

And the court set aside a verdict for the plaintiff. Ibid. and 1 East, 435.

Sed vide ante, BILLS and NOTtes, A. (a) 1, 2, 3, 5.

57. A newspaper may be read in evidence without a stamp. The King v. Pearce, Peake, 75. Kenyon, C. J. 1791.

58. Semble, that the bailiff's indorsement on a warrant upon a fi. fa. acknowledging the receipt of the levy money, requires no stamp. Perchard and Hamerton, sheriffs of London, v. Tindall, 1 Esp. 394. Kenyon, C. J. 1795.

59. An I. O. U. is evidence of the acknowledgment of a debt without being stamped. Fisher, gent. v. Leslie, 1 Esp. 426. Eyre, C. J. 1795.

And see ante, pl. 53.

60. S. P. ruled on the authority of

52. In an action for bribery against a candidate at an election, an unstamped paper, purporting to be a promissory the last case, in Israel v. Israel, 1 note, given by the voter as a cloak for Campb. 499. Ellenborough, C. J. 1808. the bribe, is evidence to shew the fact 61. S. P. contra, Guy v. Harris, of the payment of the sum mentioned Chitty on Bills, 428, n. Eldon, C. J. in the note. Dover v. Maestaer, 5 Esp. 1800. 93. Ellenborough, C. J. 1803. And see infra, pl. 55.

62. No action can be maintained on an instrument, which by the laws of 53. Where a promissory note is given the country in which it was made, is without a stamp, and the maker writes void for want of a stamp. Alves v. upon it a memorandum of his having Hodgson, 2 Esp. 528. Kenyon, C. J. paid a certain sum for interest, such 1797. memorandum may be read as an admission that there was due a principal sum which would yield so much interest. Manley et ux. v. Peel, 5 Esp. 121. Ellenborough, C. J. 1804.

54. If the plaintiff, in his particular, demand money due on a promissory note only, which note appears to be on an improper stamp, he cannot resort to the money counts. Wade v. Beasley, 4 Esp. 7. Kenyon, C. J. 1801.

But see Brown v. Hodgson, 4 Taunt. 189. And see ante, BILLS, A. (b).

And the court concurred with the C. J. Ibid. and 7 T. R. 241.

63. The articles of a Swedish ship made in Sweden, and deposited by the captain on his arrival here with the Swedish consul, were admitted to prove a fact relative to the engagement of a seaman, who had been hired after the arrival of the vessel in this country. Winbled v. Malmberg, 2 Esp. 454. Eyre, C. J. 1796. Ante, SHIP, pl. 156.

64. A building lease under 51. per annum, is not exempted from the stamp duty. Doe d. Hunter et alt. v. Boulcot et alt. 2 Esp. 595. Eyre, C. J. 1797.

E. OTHER INSTRUMENTS. (And see post, TROVER, A. 12.) 65. A postea cannot be given in evidence in another cause without a stamp. 55. To prove the effecting of a lottery Rex v. Hammond Page, 2 Esp. 650, n. insurance, the illegal policy may be and 6 Esp. 83. Kenyon, C. J. 1788. read without a stamp. Holland, qui 66. A policy of insurance effected tam, v. Duffin, Peake, 58. Kenyon, without a stamp, is an absolute nullity C. J. 1791. by the express words of 35 Geo. III.

56. An instrument containing an ac- cap. 63. s. 14 and 16; and cannot be knowledgment of having received an rendered valid by a stamp subsequently acceptance and an undertaking to pro-affixed by the commissioners upon the vide for it, was held to require a receipt payment of the duty and penalty. Ro

(g) 8 Ann. cap. 9. (Apprentices.)
(h) 1 Geo. I. stat. 2. cap. 5.
(Riot.)

(i) 6 Geo. I. cap. 8.
stock companies.)
(k) 10 Geo. I. cap. 10.
cise.)

(Joint

(w) 34 Geo. III. cap. 9. (Alien.) (x) 37 Geo. III. cap. 73. (Seamen's wages.)

(y) 39 Geo. III. cap. 58. (Porterage.)

(z) 39 & 40 Geo. III. (Pawnbroker.)

(aa) 43 Geo. III. cap. 58. (New felonies.)

(bb) 43 Geo. III. cap. 155, s. 13. (Exemption from Navigation Act.)

A. How CONSTRUED.

1. Justices of the peace are bound to use the forms of orders, &c. given by statute. Goss v. Jackson, 3 Esp. 198. (Ex-Kenyon, C. J. 1800.

Acc. Davison v. Gill, 1 East, 64. 2. Where a statute prohibits the (1) 7 Geo. II. cap. 8. (Stock-manufacturing of bricks under certain dimensions, a manufacturer cannot main(m) 17 Geo. II. cap. 40. (Naval tain an action for the price of bricks, all

jobbing.)

stores.)

(n) 24 Geo. II. cap. 18.
cial jury.)

(0) 24 Geo. II. cap. 40.
tailing spirits.)

of which are under the standard size, (Spe- although selected by the defendant and used by him. Law v. Hodgson, 2 (Re-Campb. 147. Ellenborough, C. J. 1808.

(p) 24 Geo. II. cap. 44. (Pro-
tection of justices, &c.)

And the court refused a rule to set aside nonsuit. Ibid. and 11 East, 300. 3. And where a small portion only of a cargo consists of prohibited goods, an

(q) 14 Geo. III. cap. 78. (Build-insurance on the cargo generally is void. Parkin v. Dick, 2 Campb. 221.

ing act.)

(r) 24 Geo. III. cap. 48. (Ex-Ellenborough, C. J. 1809.

cise.)

4. A private act which directs that the expense of maintaining the assessing (s) 26 Geo. III. cap. 60. (Re-jury shall be borne in a particular man

gisters.)
(t) 26 Geo. III. cap. 50;
cap. 20; 29.
cap.
(Whale fishery.)

ner, does not extend to a dinner provided 28 for the jury after they have delivered their 53. verdict. Forster v. Taylor, 3 Campb. 49. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811.