Haight v. Grist

• Decision Date: 30 June 1870
• Citation: 64 N.C. 739
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAM HAIGHT v. WILLIE G. GRIST.

64 N.C. 739

WILLIAM HAIGHT

v.WILLIE G. GRIST.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1870.

The United States statute (1866, c. 184, s. 9) providing that no deed, writing, &c., required by law to be stamped, which has been signed or issued without being duly stamped, &c., shall be admitted or used as evidence in any court, &c., &c.: is a rule of evidence for the court of the United States only.

Whether the courts of this State will enforce contracts which were not stamped by the parties by design, to defraud the United States of revenue: Quære?

CIVIL ACTION upon a bond, tried before Jones, J., at Spring Term 1870, of BEAUFORT Court.

The answer relied upon the defence of set off. Upon the plaintiff's 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 the note was read to the jury. The defendant excepted.

Verdict for the plaintiff; Judgment accordingly; Appeal by the defendant.

Carter, for the appellant .

Battle & Sons, contra

.

1. Supposing this case to come within the provisions of the U. S. Act, although it does not, we submit that the clause in question is a penal one, which the State cannot undertake to administer: See Story's Conf. of Laws, sec. 621, et seq; also Allen v. Pass, 4 D. & B., at p. 90.

2. Again, the State ought not to take upon itself the enforcement of the U. S. revenue laws; See Story Conf., sec. 257; and Satterthwaite v. Doughty, Bus. 314.

3. The U. S. government has no constitutional power to regulate the rules of evidence in the State Courts: Carpenter v. Snelling, 97 Mass. 452; Lynch v. Morse, Ib. 458; 3 Am. Law Rev. 335; Hunter v. Cobb, 1 Bus. 239, 3 Am. L. Rev. 484.

4. The omission to affix a revenue stamp to an instrument requiring one, will not invalidate the instrument, unless such omission be with intent to defraud the government of the stamp duty: Holyoke Machine Co. v. Franklin Paper Co., 97 Mass. 150; Vosebeck v. Rose, 50 Barb. 302; Blunt v. Bates, 40 Ala. 470.

5. The maker of a promissory note through whose fault an insufficient stamp was affixed to it, cannot object to its being received in evidence.: Jocquin v. Warren, 40 Ill. 459, 3 Am. Law Rev. 484.

6. The defendant cannot take advantage of the want of a stamp under the pleadings in the present case: Hollock v. Jaudin, 34 Calif. Rep. 167; Jones v. Davis, 22 Wis. 421, 4 Am. L. Rev. 421; Adams v. Dole, 29 Ind. 273.

READE, 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 Revenue 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 denoting the amount of tax, shall have been affixed thereto, as prescribed by law.”

Our attention has not been called to any provision of law which authorized parties interested to affix stamps at the date of trial below, to writings, & c., that had been executed previously. It was said at the bar that a custom of that sort has sprung up in the country, owing to the difficulty of procuring stamps at the proper times and places. However convenient that custom may be, we have no ground for supposing that it has the sanction of law. The periods during which, in some cases, stamps were allowed by statute to be affixed to papers previously executed, have long since expired.

Admitting that it is a vital matter with the government of the United States that its revenue laws shall not be evaded, it is equally clear that the enforcement of these, as well as of all of...