Dailey v. Coker

Citations

• 33 Tex. 815

Syllabus

<p>1. The provision of the United States revenue laws which prohibits the admission of unstamped instruments in evidence has especial reference to the courts of the United States, and not to State courts ; and the State courts do not reject an instrument as evidence because it was not stamped when executed, unless it is being used, unstamped, with intent to defraud the United States Government.</p> <p>2. When the omission to stamp an instrument appears to have been the result of an innocent accident, or of inability to- procure the proper stamp, the practice of theState courts is to allow the stamp to be affixed and cancelled in open court, when the instrument is offered in evidence.</p> <p>3. In a suit in a district court of this State on an instrument executed in this State in 1863, at which time it was impossible for the maker to procure the proper stamp, the court below allowed ,the plaintiff, at the trial of the cause, to affix aud canceL the stamp in open court, and then to use the instrument as evidence. Held, that there was no error in the ruling.</p> <p>4. This was a suit for the value of certain tobacco delivered by plaintiff to defendants in 1863. The defendants’ receipt was for “ two boxes of tobacco, one weighing mark 113, one ditto 63,” for which the defendants promised to account; which receipt was the only evidence adduced to prov“ the quantity of the tobacco. Held, that the “ weighing marks ” may have been merely descriptive of the boxes, or may have denoted the - gross weight of the boxes and their contents, but could not, without explanation, establish the net weight ol the tobacco; and hence the receipt does not suffice to support a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.</p> <p>5. When a pleading filed by one of the parties litigant was stricken out on motion of the other party, and was not read to the jury, admissions contained in it will not avail to support a verdict in favor of the party at whose instance it was stricken out.</p>