Sammons v. Halloway
| Decision Date | 11 July 1870 |
| Citation | 21 Mich. 162 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William S. Sammons v. Silas Halloway |
Heard July 11, 1870
Error to Lenawee circuit.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Silas Halloway in the circuit court for the county of Lenawee, upon a promissory note made by William S. Sammons; the principal defense to which was that the note was not stamped as required by the revenue laws of the United States. The plaintiff below had a verdict and judgment, and the defendant brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
Geo. L Bachman and C. A. Stacy, for plaintiff in error.
Eldredge & Walker, for defendant in error.
Halloway sued Sammons upon a promissory note. Sammons defended on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped under the United States revenue laws, and consequently was neither admissible in evidence, nor could a recovery be had upon it if admitted. The circuit judge ruled otherwise. We think this ruling correct.
We decided, in the case of Clemens v. Conrad, 19 Mich. 170, that the provision of the act of congress which precluded unstamped instruments being received in evidence had no application to the state courts. We did not undertake to say what should be the effect of such instruments when received in evidence, because the case then before us did not call for such a decision. But it legitimately follows that if they are receivable in evidence, it is because when received they have a bearing upon the issue, which would not be the case if they were utterly void.
We have no doubt of the right of congress to lay stamp duties, and to impose penalties, which may be collected by proper judicial proceedings, for any violation of their regulations on that subject. But to make void a contract made in one of the states between citizens thereof, and which is permitted by the local law, is not a proper penalty, and is not admissible under our political system. There was no hint of such a power in our federal constitution, and it is inconsistent with the unquestioned right of the states to regulate in their own way the matters of local trade and commerce. What congress might do regarding contracts which fall within the domain of foreign or inter-state commerce we do not undertake to say; but the formalities of contracts like the one in question are matters exclusively of state regulation, and if the federal government imposes taxes upon these instruments, it must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmers' Sav. Bank v. Neel
...that his action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith." Revenue stamps are no part of the contract. Ebert v. Gitt, supra; Sammons v. Halloway, supra; Hallock v. Jaudin, supra; Cabbott Radford, supra. No one will question the right or power of the state legislature to declare what i......
-
Farmers' Sav. Bank v. Neel, 34327.
...67 N. E. 636;Loring v. Chase, 26 Misc. Rep. 318, 56 N. Y. Supp. 312;Davis v. Richardson, 45 Miss. 499, 7 Am. Rep. 732;Sammons v. Halloway, 21 Mich. 162, 4 Am. Rep. 465;Duffy v. Hobson, 40 Cal. 240, 6 Am. Rep. 617;Moore v. Moore, 47 N. Y. 467, 7 Am. Rep. 466;Bumpass v. Taggart, 26 Ark. 398, ......
-
Watson v. Mirike
...holding is in accord with the construction placed upon those acts by nearly all the states. 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. ......
-
Wade v. Foss
...47 Ill. 308, 95 Am. Dec. 489; Wingert v. Zeigler, 91 Md. 318, 46 Atl. 1074, 51 L. R. A. 316, 80 Am. St. Rep. 453; Sammons v. Holloway, 21 Mich. 162, 4 Am. Rep. 465; Insurance Co. v. Estes, 106 Tenn. 472, 62 S. W. 149, 82 Am. St. Rep. 892; Bumpass v. Taggart, 26 Ark. 398, 7 Am. Rep. 623; Dav......