Wright v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.

Citations

• 130 F. 843
• 65 C.C.A. 327
• 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4232

Syllabus

<p>1. Internal Revenue — Stamp Tax on Bills op Lading — Duplicates.</p> <p>In paragraph 6 of Schedule A of the war revenue act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. 458, c. 448 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2304]), which requires a stamp to be affixed to each bill of lading, manifest, etc., “and to each duplicate thereof,” the word “duplicate” is to be defined in accordance with the meaning given it generally in business, as one of two instruments, each of which is original, and intended to have the force of an obligation irrespective of the other, and not as meaning merely a copy.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>A railroad company issued bills of lading marked “Original,” to each of which was attached a detachable copy, marked as such, and containing a statement thereon that it was not an original bill of lading, but merely a memorandum for filing, as an acknowledgment that a bill of lading had been issued for the goods described. Held, that such copies were not duplicate bills of lading, within the meaning of paragraph 6 of Schedule A of the war revenue act of June 13,1898 (30 Stat. 458, e. 448 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2304]), and were not required to be stamped; nor were they rendered such by the fact that in some instances the company recognized-them in making deliveries to the consignee, waiving the production of the-original.</p> <p>3. Evidence — Expert Testimony — Construction op Instrument.</p> <p>The question whether a written instrument is a duplicate of another, within the-meaning of a statute, is not one upon which expert testimony is. competent, but is one for the court.</p>