Mays v. Rutledge

Citations

• 37 Tex. 134

Syllabus

<p>In an action by an indorsee of a promissory note against the makers, the note, being offered in evidence by the plaintiff, was objected to by the defendants, because it was apparent upon the face of the note that the requisite revenue stamp had not been affixed by the makers, but by the indorsee; which objection was sustained, and verdict and judgment rendered in favor of defendants. Held, that the court erred in sustaining the objection of defendants to the introduction of the note in evidence before the jury. (Schultz v. Herndon, 32 Texas, 390, cited by the court.)</p>