arbitrators made an award, Eyre, C.J., admitted the award as evidence under the account stated; Keen v. Batshore, 1 Esp. 194; and in assumpsit on a policy of insurance, Lord Kenyon admitted evidence that the defendant had agreed to be bound by an award to which other persons were parties, and that the award was in favour of the plaintiff. Kingston v. Phelps, Peake,

227.

As to the effect of presumptive evidence, hearsay, and admissions, see those titles respectively.

STAMPS.

Effect of want of stamp.] An instrument requiring a stamp cannot be produced in evidence without being stamped, and if parties agree by parol to be bound by the same terms as those contained in a written instrument, the latter cannot be given in evidence unless properly stamped. Turner v. Power, 7 B. and C. 625. See Drant v. Brown, 3 B. and C. 665. Where an unstamped instrument in writing has been lost, R. v. Castlemorton, 3 B. and A. 588, or destroyed even by the party who objects to the want of the stamp, Rippener v. Wright, 2 B. and A. 478, parol evidence of the contents is inadmissible. But in some cases, in which an instrument has been lost, which is not proved to have been properly stamped, that fact may be presumed, as where an indenture of apprenticeship, executed thirty years before, was lost, it was presumed to have been properly stamped, though an officer from the stampoffice proved that it did not appear that any such indenture had been stamped. R. v. Long Buckley, 7 East, 45. And where a party refuses to produce an agreement after notice, it will be presumed as against him to be properly stamped. Crisp v. Anderson, 1 Stark. 35. Where the transaction is capable of being legally proved by other evidence than that of the instrument which ought to bear a stamp, such evidence may be resorted to. Thus, where a promissory note appears to be improperly stamped, the plaintiff may resort to the original consideration. Farr v. Price, 1 East, 58. Tyte v. Jones, id. (n.) So, though an unstamped receipt is no evidence of payment, the fact of payment may be proved by a witness who was present. Rambert v. Cohen, 4 Esp. 213. So where an action is brought upon an instrument which ought to be stamped, and the form of the pleading is such, that at the trial it was not necessary to produce the instrument, a court of law will not examine whether the instrument is legally available with reference to the stamp laws. Per Lord Eldon,

Huddlestone v. Briscoe, 11 Ves, 596. Thynne v. Protheroe, 2 M. and S. 553. If a plaintiff succeeds in making out a case of implied or oral contract, and it does not appear on the crossexamination of his witnesses that there was any contract in writing, the defendant will not be allowed to give an un stamped written contract in evidence for the purpose of nonsuiting the plaintiff. Fielder v. Ray, 6 Bingh. 332; and see Reed v. Deere, 7 B. and C. 266. R. v. Inhab. of Rawden, 8 B. and C. 708. A party who executes the counterpart of a deed properly stamped cannot object to its admissibility in evi dence on the ground that the original is not properly stamped. Paul v. Meek, 2 Y. and J. 116. ante p. 2.

Unstamped instrument when evidence for collateral purposes.] In many cases an instrument not legally stamped is admissible to prove a collateral fact. Thus, in an action of debt for bribery at an election, an unstamped promissory note payable to the defendant, which the witness said he had given for the repayment of money received by him as a voter, from the defendant, is evidence to corroborate the testimony of the witness. Dover v. Maestaer, 5 Esp. 92. So to refresh a witness's memory, ante p. 98. So an unstamped promissory note may be given in evidence to establish fraud, by showing that it was written by the maker in a state of intoxication. Gregory v. Fraser, 3 Campb. 454. And the court may inspect an unstamped writing for the purpose of ascertaining whether its contents preclude the admission of parol evidence, R. v. Pendleton, 15 East, 440. Where a party declared upon two written agreements, by the second of which variations were made in the first, and there were also counts upon each sepa. rately, and it appeared when the instruments were produced in evidence by the plaintiff that the first only was stamped, it was held that the second could not be read in evidence to support the plaintiff's case, but might be looked at by the court in order to ascertain whether the first was altered by it, and that therefore the plaintiff could not exclude the second agreement, and proceed upon the counts setting out the first only. Reed v. Deere, 7 B. and C. 261. But where in an action against an acceptor it appeared that on the bill becoming due his name had been erased and another bill (unstamped) drawn on the back of the first, it was held that the unstamped bill could not be submitted to the jury for the purpose of drawing the conclusion that the first bill had been cancelled. Sweeting v. Halse, 9 B. and C. 365; and see Sutton V. Toomer, 7 B. and C. 416.

Several stamps and several contracts with one stamp.] Where the subject matter of the instrument is joint, though several persons are interested in it, only one stamp is requisite.

Thus, an assignment of the prize-money of several seamen on board a privateer, payable out of one fund, requires only one stamp. Baker v. Jardine, 13 East, 235 (n). So an agreement by several for a subscription for one common fund. Davis v. Williams, 13 East, 232. So an agreement of reference by all the underwriters on one policy. Goodson v. Forbes, 6 Taunt. 171. So a bond by several obligors, in a penalty conditioned for the performance of certain acts, by each and every of them. Bowen v. Ashley, 1 N. R. 274; 6 Taunt 175; and see Stead v. Liddard, 1 Bingh. 196. Boase v. Jackson, 3 B. and B. 185. And where the members of a mutual insurance club all executed the same power of attorney, severally authorising the persons therein named to sign the club policies for them, it was held to require only one stamp. Allen v. Morrison, 8 B. and C. 565.

Where a paper contains several contracts, and consequently requires several stamps, but only one is impressed upon it, that stamp applies to the contract on which it is impressed. Powell v. Edmunds, 12 East, 6. And where an instrument contains a contract of demise general in its terms but several in its operation with respect to the different tenants who sign, it is matter of evidence to which contract the stamp applies, and the juxta-position of the stamp is to be regarded. Doe v. Day, 13 East, 241. Where the several admissions of five corporators as freemen were written on the same paper with only one stamp, such stamp was held to apply to the first admission only, and the others could not be read. R. v. Reeks, 2 Ld. Raym. 1445; and see Perry v. Bouchier, 4 Campb. 80. Wuddington v. Francis, Esp. 182.

Proper denomination.] By stat. 43 Geo. III. c. 127, s. 6, if the stamp is of a proper denomination it shall not be ineffectual from its being of a greater value than the stamp acts require, and by stat. 55 Geo. III. c. 184, s. 10, all instruments for, or upon which any stamp or stamps shall have been used, of an improper denomination, or rate of duty, but of equal or greater value, in the whole, with or than the stamp or stamps which ought regularly to have been used thereon, shall be deemed valid and effectual in law, except in cases where the stamp or stamps, used in such instruments, shall have been specifically appropriated to any other instrument by having its name on the face thereof.

If an instrument bear a proper stamp when produced at the trial it is sufficient, though it was not stamped when it was executed, provided the commissioners of stamps are not expressly prohibited from subsequently affixing a stamp. R. v. Bishop of Chester, 1 Str. 624; and see Rogers v. James, 7 Tuunt. But with regard to an instrument to which a stamp cannot be subsequently affixed, an inquiry as to the time when

147.

the stamp was put on is admissible. Green v. Davies, 4 B. and C. 241; but see Wright v. Riley, Peake, 173.

Where an instrument has been stamped on payment of a penalty it is admissible, though the receipt has been erased, provided it be proved that such receipt was once indorsed. It is not necessary to prove the commissioners' signature to the receipt. Apothecaries' Company v. Fernihough, 2 C. and P. 439.

Administration, Letters of.

Where an administrator is bound to prove his title at the trial, and produces letters of administration stamped for a less sum than that which he seeks to recover in the action, it is ground of non-suit. Hunt v. Stevens, 3 Taunt. 113. On payment of the full duty, such letters may be restamped with the proper stamp. 55 Geo. III. c. 184, s. 41. But where an administrator is not bound to prove his title, as where he sues on promises to his intestate, and non assumpsit is pleaded, the defendant cannot insist on the plaintiff proving his title, by producing the letters of administration, and if produced, cannot object that they are not properly stamped. Thynne v. Protheroe, 2 M, and S. 553.

Agreements.

By 55 Geo. III. c. 184, Sched. an agreement, or any minute, or memorandum of an agreement, made in England, under hand only, or made in Scotland, without any clause of registration, and not otherwise charged in that schedule to that act, nor expressly exempted from all stamp duty, where the matter thereof shall be of the value of 201. or upwards, whether the same shall be only evidence of a contract, or obligatory upon the parties, from its being a written instrument, together with every schedule, receipt, or other matter put or indorsed thereon, or annexed thereto, shall bear a 11. stamp. See similar provisions in 44 Geo. III. c. 98, 48 Geo. III. c. 149, upon which many of the cases cited below arose.

The following are the exemptions in the schedule :

First Exemption. Label, slip, or memorandum, containing the heads of insurances to be made by the corporations of the Royal Exchange Assurance, or London Assurance, or by the corporations of the Royal Exchange Assurance of houses and goods from fire, and London Assurance of houses and goods from fire.

Second Exemption. Memorandum or agreement for granting a lease or tack, at rack rent, of any messuage, land, or tenement, under the yearly rent of 51. An agreement for a building lease, though under 51. per annum, is not within this exemption, the interest being a beneficial one. Doe v. Boulcot, 2 Esp. 595.

Third Exemption. Memorandum or agreement for the hire

of any labourer, artificer, manufacturer, or menial servant. The assignment of an apprentice is not within this exemption. R. v. St. Paul's, Bedford, 6 T. R. 452.

Fourth Exemption. Memorandum, letter, or agreement made for or relating to the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandizes. Cases within the Fourth Exemption. An undertaking to guarantee the payment of goods, to be furnished to third persons. Warrington v. Furbor, 8 East, 242. An agreement by A. to take half of certain goods bought by B. on their joint account, and to furnish B. with half the amount in time for payment. Venning v. Leckie, 13 East, 7. An agreement to cancel a former agreement relative to the sale of goods, and for the future sale of goods, upon different terms. Whitworth v. Crockett, 2 Stark. 431. An agreement for the sale of rape oil, not yet expressed from the seed. Wilks v. Atkinson, 6 Taunt. 11; but see Buxton v. Bedall, 3 East, 303. An agreement for the sale of chimney-pieces, the vendor "to finish them in a tradesman-like manner." Hughes v. Breeds, 2 Car. and P. 159. A receipt for the price of a horse containing a warranty of soundness. Skrine v. Elmore, 2 Camph. 407. An agreement for a crop growing in a close, to be removed immediately, and conferring no interest in the land. Parker v. Stanilund, 11 East, 362. Warwick v. Bruce, 2 M. and S. 205. Evans v. Roberts, 5 B. and C. 829. An agreement for the purchase of timber, though the trees are growing. Smith v. Surman, 9 B. and C. 561. An agreement to supply a house with water. West Middlesex W. W. v. Tenverkropp, 1 M. and M. 408. Some of the above cases were decided on the 4th sec. of the statute of frauds, but they apply as authorities on the stamp act also.

Cases not within the Fourth Exemption. An agreement in fieri for the making of goods, and for work and labour to be done, as for putting up certain machines. Buxton v. Bedall, 3 East, 303; but see Wilkes v. Atkinson, 6 Taunt. 11. Hughes v. Breeds, 2 Carr. and P. 159, supra; see also Waddington v. Bristow, 2 B. and P. 455. An agreement by a principal to provide for certain bills drawn upon his factor, if certain goods, then either in the factor's possession or about to be placed there, should remain unsold at the time of the bills falling due; for the exemption is confined to instruments whereof the sale of goods is the primary object. Smith v. Cator, 2 B. and A. 778. An agreement for the sale of growing crops, conferring an interest in the land. Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 East, 602 (case on the 4th sec. of the stat. of frauds). Waddington v. Bristow, 2 B. and P. 453. Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt. 38 (case on the 4th sec. of the stat. of frauds). So a sale of growing underwood to be cut by the purchaser, has been held to confer an interest in land under the 4th section of the statute of frauds. Scorell v. Borall, 1 Y. and J. 366. A contract, under seal, for the sale of goods. Per Bayley, J., Clayton v. Burtenshaw, 5 B. and C. 45.