Latham v. Smith
| Decision Date | 30 June 1867 |
| Citation | 45 Ill. 29,1867 WL 5213 |
| Parties | WILLIAM A. LATHAMv.JOHN E. SMITH. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. SILAS L. BRYAN, Judge, presiding.
This is the same case referred to in the preceding opinion, which, upon being remanded, was again tried in the court below, the trial resulting as before, in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. The principal question arising on the record is, whether the congress has the power to require that an instrument shall be stamped, as a condition precedent to its admissibility in evidence in a State court.
Messrs. WILLARD & GOODNOW, for the appellant.
Mr. B. B. SMITH, for the appellee.
The note in this case bears date August 26, 1865, and is, of course, so far as the “stamping” is concerned, governed by the act of congress of June 30, 1864. Section 158 of that act provides, “that any person who shall make, sign or issue, or who shall cause to be made, signed or issued, any instrument, document or paper of any kind or description whatsoever, or shall accept, negotiate or pay, or cause to be accepted, negotiated or paid, any bill of exchange, draft or order, or promissory note for the payment of money, without the same being duly stamped, or having thereupon an adhesive stamp for denoting the tax chargeable thereon and canceled in the manner required by law, with intent to evade the provisions of this act, shall, for every such offense, forfeit the sum of fifty dollars; and such instrument, document or paper, bill, draft, order or note, not being stamped according to law shall be deemed invalid and of no effect.”
By schedule B attached to the act, the note in question was subject to a stamp duty of five cents.
There is no proof whatever, nor is there any ground for the presumption, that the stamp was omitted with the intent to evade the provisions of this act, but through sheer forgetfulness or ignorance. A stamp, however, was placed upon it by the payee of the note before suit was brought on it, so that the revenue has not been deprived of the duty.
The note was made for a good and valuable consideration, and recognized by the laws of this State as a valid instrument, and competent evidence in the courts of the State to charge the party making it with the debt specified in it.
While we concede to the congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
More v. Clymer
...avoid a written contract, nor render it incompetent when offered in evidence in a state court.-- Jacquin v. Warren, 40 Ill. 459; Latham v. Smith, 45 Ill. 29; Craig v. Dimock, 47 Ill. 308; Bunker v. Green, 48 Ill. 243; Express Co. v. Harris, 48 Ill. 248; Wilson v. McKenna, 52 Ill. 43; Carpen......
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Swanger
...More v. Clymer, 12 Mo.App. 11; Clark v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 564; King v. Insurance Co., 195 Mo. 290, 92 S.W. 892, 113 Am.St.Rep. 678; Latham v. Smith, 45 Ill. 29; Craig Dimock, 47 Ill. 308; Bunker v. Green, 48 Ill. 243; Express Co. v. Haines, 48 Ill. 248; Wilson v. McKenna, 52 Ill. 43; Griffin......
-
More v. Clymer
... ... when offered in evidence in a state court.-- Jacquin v ... Warren, 40 Ill. 459; Latham v. Smith, 45 Ill ... 29; Craig v. Dimock, 47 Ill. 308; Bunker v ... Green, 48 Ill. 243; Express Co. v. Harris, 48 ... Ill. 248; Wilson v ... ...
-
Watson v. Mirike
... ... Blum v. Strong, 71 Tex. 328, 6 S. W. 167; Machinery Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 44 S. W. 592; Aldredge v. Webb, supra. We conclude that the court erred in overruling defendant's exception to the plea in ... Clemens v. Conrad, 19 Mich. 170; Sammons v. Halloway, 21 Mich. 162; Latham v. Smith, 45 Ill. 29; Craig v. Dimock, 47 Ill. 308; Bunker v. Green, 48 Ill. 243; Hanford v. Abrecht, 49 Ill. 146; Bowen v. Byrne, 55 Ill. 467; ... ...