Day v. Baker

• Citation: 36 Mo. 125
• Parties: CORNELIUS DAY, Appellant, v. JOHN W. AND JESSE BAKER, Respondents.
• Decision Date: 31 August 1865
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

36 Mo. 125

CORNELIUS DAY, Appellant,

v.JOHN W. AND JESSE BAKER, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

August Term, 1865.

Appeal from Buchanan Court of Common Pleas.

H. M. & A. H. Vories, for appellant.

Ensworth and W. Jones, for respondents.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff sued defendants, in the Court of Common Pleas for Buchanan county, on a promissory note, dated March 9, 1863, for the sum of three hundred dollars, due and payable thirty days after the date thereof. He alleged in his petition that, at the time of the execution of the note, neither he nor the defendants knew what denomination of revenue stamp was required to be attached to said note in accordance with the revenue laws of the United States, but that it was agreed that the stamp might be put upon the said note when the amount was ascertained. Plaintiff then averred that, before suit was brought, he attached a government stamp on said note (which is admitted to be of the proper denomination), and requested defendants to cancel the same by writing the initials of their names and the date thereon, which they refused to do. Defendants answered, admitting the execution of the note, but denied that any agreement was made about attaching a stamp to the said note or canceling the same. They also alleged as a defence to plaintiff's cause of action, that the note was void because no stamp was affixed thereto, as provided by law of Congress, approved July 1, 1862.

Before any trial was had, all the original papers together with the note were lost, and they were substituted in court. Neither party requiring a jury, the cause was submitted to the court. Plaintiff proved that about two months after the execution of the note he placed a revenue stamp of the proper amount thereon, and presented the same to defendants and requested them to cancel it, which they refused to do. No other evidence was offered or introduced in the cause. The court found for defendants. The plaintiff duly excepted and appealed.

The court below clearly misapprehended the law governing the case. The act of Congress of July, 1862, did make void all instruments requiring a stamp, where the party neglect to affix one according to its provisions; but this case does not come within its operation. By the law of Congress approved March 3, 1863, amendatory of the act of 1862, it is provided in section sixteen, “that no instrument, document, or paper, made, signed or issued prior to the first day of June, A. D. 1863, without being duly stamped, or having thereon an adhesive stamp, to denote the duty imposed thereon, shall, for that cause, be deemed invalid and of no effect: And provided, that no instrument, document, writing, or paper, required by law to be stamped, signed, or issued, without being duly stamped prior to the day aforesaid, or any copy thereof, shall be admitted or used as evidence in any court until a legal stamp,...