Page images

Affidavit. Affidavit or Statutory Declaration made under the provisions of ; & 6 Will. 4, c. 62:—28. 6d.

Exemptions.] These include affidavit (1) made for the immediate purpose of being filed, read, or used in any court, &c.; (2) required by law and made before a justice of the peace; (3) required at the Bank of England or Ireland to prove the death of, or to identify, any proprietor of stock transferable there, or to remove any other impediment to the transfer of any such stock; (4) relating to the loss, mutilation, or defacement of any bank-note or bank post-bill; also (5) declaration required to be made pursuant to any Act relating to marriages in order to a marriage without licence.

A statutory declaration forming part of an application for a patent is also exempt by 47 & 48 Vict. c. 62, s. 9.

et seq.

ways :-6d.

Agreement. Agreement or Contract, accompanied with a deposit. See Mortgage, &c., and sect. 105, and 51 & 52 Vict. c. 8, ss. 14 (2, 3), 15 (1), post, pp. 257

Agreement for a lease or for any letting. See Lease, and sect. 96, post, pp. 253, 254.

Agreement or Contract made or entered into pursuant to the Highway Acts for or relating to the making, maintaining, or repairing of high

Agreement, or any Memorandum of an agreement, made in England 01 Ireland under hand only, or made in Scotland without any clause of registration, and not otherwise specifically charged with any duty, whether the same be only evidence of a contract, or obligatory upon the parties from its being a written instrument:—6d.”

Sect. 36. The duty of 6d. upon an agreement may be denoted by an adhesive stamp, which is to be cancelled by the person by whom the agreement is first executed.”

The exemptions contained in the schedule are treated at length, post, pp. 232 et seq.

For the stamp required by 32 & 53 Vict. c. 42, s. 15, on an agreement for the sale of any equitable interest in any property, or of any interest in any property except lands, &c., or goods, &c., or stock or marketable securities, or ships, vide post, p. 247.

What are agreements within the meaning of the Stamp Act.] Many documents, although they may be assistance in the proof of an original or substituted contract, do not require to be stamped as agreements. Of this kind are directions and licences, which excuse what would otherwise be a trespass or a breach of contract. So also, memoranda of agreements, the terms of which do not appear to have been mutually and finally approved of by the contracting parties, before or at the time when these memoranda were committed to writing, are regarded as mere proposals, and may

be admitted in evidence without a stamp. In Ingram v. Lea, 2 Camp. 521, where a customer wrote down upon a slip of paper a description of the goods which he had ordered, which paper he signed and delivered to the shopkeeper, it was admitted in evidence without a stamp. In Parker v. Dubois, 1 M. & W. 31, where the defendant, in answer to an application to that effect, wrote back authorizing the plaintiff to pay a

call upon

shares which the defendant had agreed to purchase from him, it was held that the letter required no stamp. In Bethell v. Blencowe, 3 M. & Gr. 119, a memorandum allowing the defendant, a projected lodger, to leave lodgings without any notice if he saw reason to suspect embarrassment in the landlord, and signed by the landlord, was, though unstamped, admitted. In Walker v. Rostron, 9 M. & W. 411, a letter written by the buyer of goods to his factors, directing them to appropriate the proceeds of the sale of the goods to the payment of bills accepted by the buyer, if these bills had not previously been honoured, was held not to require a stamp. But it would seem under the present Act to require a stamp under sect. 48 (post, p. 236), as a bill payable on demand, vide post, pp. 239, 240. In Hill v. Ramm, 5 M. & Gr. 789, a memorandum signed by a tenant authorizing his landlord, upon condition of withdrawing a distress, to re-enter and distrain in case of default in payment of the rent by a certain day, was held not to be an agreement requiring a stamp. In Fishwick v. Milnes, 4 Exch. 825, a document signed by a tenant, by which he requested a bailiff to forbear selling his goods, and consented that they should remain on the premises in his possession for a period of three months, when he, the tenant, would give them up, and pay all costs and charges attending the distress, was admitted without a stamp. In Edgar v. Blick, 1 Stark. 464, a prospectus containing the terms upon which the plaintiff undertook to introduce applicants to partnerships or situations, was admitted unstamped, though these terms were adopted in the agreement upon which the action was brought. In Clay v. Crofts, 20 L. J., Ex. 361, a prospectus of the terms of a school had been shown to the father of two boys, upon which he agreed to place them in the school, subject to a slight reduction in the terms of payment. It was held that the prospectus might be put in evidence without a stamp. In Ramsbottom v. Tunbridge, 2 M. & S. 434, a lease of premises was sold by auction, and the auctioneer handed to the buyer a written paper specifying the term, the rent, and the extent of the premises. This paper not having been signed, the court allowed it to be received in evidence unstamped. But in Ramsbottom y. Mortley, Ib. 445, where a similar paper was signed by the auctioneer, the court thought that it must be stamped, even although the memorandum did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Accord. Glover V. Halkett, 2 H. & N. 487 ; 26 L. J., Ex. 416.

In Vollans v. Fletcher, 1 Exch. 21, where a shareholder proved his title to shares by his letter of application and the letter of allotment in reply, in which was contained a power for the company, in default of payment of the deposit, to cancel the allotment, a term not alluded to in the first letter, an objection, that the letters required a stamp, was overruled. See Duke v. Andrews, 2 Exch. 290 ; Willey v. Parratt, 5 Exch. 211. In Chaplin v. Clarke, 4 Exch. 403, a letter of allotment of shares, the letter of application having been lost, was admitted without a stamp. See also Moore v. Garwood, Ib. 681, Ex. Ch. See now, however, Letter of Allotment, post, p. 255. Where the plaintiff made a memorandum in writing of an offer on his part to let to the defendant a piece of land upon the same conditions as those which had been agreed to by the defendant and a third person, to which offer the defendant afterwards verbally assented, the memorandum was admitted without a stamp. Drant v. Brown, 3 B. & C. 665; Hawkins v. Warre, Id. 690; Hudspeth v. Yarnold, 9 C. B. 625.

In Vaughton v. Brine, 1 M. & Gr. 359, a resolution, signed by the provisional committee of a company to employ the plaintiff as secretary was received in evidence unstamped, as not amounting to an agreement. Where a minute was made at a meeting, of a resolution, by the defendants and others, to make an alteration in the terms of a previous contract between them and the plaintiff, and to allow him an additional sum for extra trouble, and this minute was read over to the plaintiff, and assented to by him, Rolfe, B., held, at Nisi Prius, that the resolution could not be admitted without a stamp. Lucas v. Beach, Id. 417. And in Knight v. Barber, 16M.&W.67, the defendant, after having given the plaintiff a verbal order for 50 shares in a railway company, signed a memorandum that he had bought of the plaintiff 50 shares in the company at 101. a share, which memorandum was handed to the plaintiff. It was held that this memorandum required an agreementstamp. "A written instrument, to come within the terms of this clause of the Stamp Act, must have been made with the intention of containing within itself the terms of an agreement between the parties.” Id. 70, per Parke, B. In Chadwick v. Clarke, 1 O. B. 700, a draft agreement forwarded by the plaintiff to the defendant's solicitor, and sent back by him on the same day with certain alterations, to which the plaintiff did not object, was held inadmissible (although it had no signature) for want of an agreement stamp. And per curiam the words “under hand only” in this part of the Stamp Act, merely refer to instruments not under seal. But see 6 C. B. 700, n. An agreement to enlarge the time for performing another agreement requires a new stamp, where the former one required to be stamped. Bacon v. Simpson, 3 M. & W.78.

An instrument operating as an attornment only, requires no stamp. Doe d. Linsey v. Edward, 5 Ad. & E. 95; Doe d. Wright v. Smith, 8 Ad. & E. 255. So, a mere acknowledgment. Thus, in an action against an attorney, the plaintiff gave in evidence the following unstamped letter :“I have this day received a bill of exchange for 3001., drawn, &c., which I hold as your attorney to recover the value of from the respective parties, or to make such other arrangement for your benefit as may appear to me in my professional capacity reasonable and proper.” Held, that this letter was a mere acknowledgment of the duty which the party took upon himself to perform, and that it therefore required no stamp. Langdon v. Wilson, 7 B. & C. 640, n.; Mullett v. Huchison, 7 B. & C. 639; De Porquet v. Page, 15 Q. B. 1073; 20 L. J., Q. B. 28. So, a memorandum, “I acknowledge that you

have for my accommodation accepted a bill for, &c., and I will provide for the same when due.” Notley v. Webb, 5 C. B. 834. So, a memorandum put in to show the assent of a party to an act done under a previous agreement by him, already in proof, in which the terms of the agreement are recapitulated. Marshall v. Powell, 9 Q. B. 779. So, an acknowledgment by the defendant of the deposit of goods with him requires no stamp though given in evidence in an action against him for not redelivering them. Blackwell v. M‘Naughtan, 1 Q. B. 127. But now see Warrant for Goods, post, p. 251. “Borrowed of A. 1001. for one or two months. Cheque for 1001. on—bank:” Held an acknowledgment only, and not an agreement or promissory note. Hyne v. Dewdney, 21 L. J., Q. B. 278. But an acknowledgment signed by the defendant, that he holds the land as tenant to the plaintiff on certain terms, cannot be put in evidence by the defendant to show that a notice to quit was irregular, without an agreement stamp. Doe d. Frankis v. Frankis, 11 Ad. & E. 792. And such an agreement may now require a lease stamp, vide post, p. 253. A broker's note of the purchase of shares, sent to his principal, does not require an agreement stamp; Tomkins v. Savory, 9 B. & C. 704; it is now, however, liable to a duty of 1d. or 6d. Vide Contract Note, post, pp. 245, 246.

The 9 Geo. 4, c. 14, s. 8, exempts from agreement duty any memorandum or other writing made necessary by that Act; thus, a qualified promise to pay, put in evidence not to prove the debt but to rebut the Statute of Limitations, is exempt. Morris v. Dixon, 4 Ad. & E. 845. See also cases post, p. 241. This exemption is continued by sect. 3 of the present Act, vide ante, p. 218.

First Exemption.] “Agreement or memorandum the matter whereof is not of the value of 51."

Under 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, sched. 1, the amount was 201., and under that Act many of the cases cited below were decided.

The statute only applies when the value of the contract is measurable. Thus a contract of marriage may be proved by unstamped letters. Oxford v. Cole, 2 Stark. 351. The value must appear on the instrument, or be capable of being ascertained at the time of making. Parke, B., Taylor v. Steele, 16 M. & W. 665; Lloyd v. Mansel, 1 L. M. & P. 130; 19 L. J., Q. B. 192. Where the agreement was to give up a shop and goodwill for 71., and not to open a shop of the same description under a forfeiture of 201., it was held not to require a stamp; for the forfeiture is not of the value of the matter. Pemberton v. Vaughan, 10 Q. B. 87. So, an agreement to pay interest at 18. per 1l. per month, if a bill for 1001., to be discounted, should not be paid at maturity. Semple v. Steinau, 8 Exch. 622; 22 L. J., Ex. 224. The general regulations of a free school under which the master is appointed, signed by him and the trustees, may be proved against him, though unstamped. Browne v. Dawson, 12 Ad. & E. 624. A memorandum by a carrier of the receipt of goods worth 201. might be given in evidence, to show the terms upon which they were received, without a stamp; the carriage being of less amount. Latham v. Rutley, Ry. & M. 13. So in the case of a wharfinger. Chadwick v. Sills, Id. 15; but in this latter case a 3d. stamp would now generally be required, vide Warrant for Goods, post, p. 251. A memorandum relating to the warehousing of goods worth more than 201. was admissible if the warehouse rent were less. Baldwin v. Alsager, 13 M. & W. 365. An agreement to indemnify a bailiff who distrained for 11. 48. rent, was held to require no stamp; for the value is uncertain. Cox v. Bailey, 6 M. & Gr. 193. So, an agreement to do work of uncertain quantity at 11. 148. per rod. Liddiard v. Gale, 4 Exch. 816. But an agreement to indemnify A. from all costs, charges, damages, or other expenses, which he might incur as bail for B., required an agreement stamp, the arrest of B. being for more than 201., though the costs, &c., incurred did not amount to that

Williams v. Jarrett, 5 B. & Ad. 32. Where the agreement relates to granting a lease, the rent is the matter on which the value is to be calculated. Mayfield v. Robinson, 7 Q. B. 486; Burton v. Reevell, 16 M. & W. 307. But if the period of tenancy be fixed, the rent multiplied by the time is the test of value. Doe d. Marlow v. Wiggins, 4 Q. B. 366, 372, 377. As, however (by sect. 96, post, p. 253), agreements for leases for terms not exceeding thirty-five years now require lease stamps, these decisions will not frequently be applicable. See further, post, p. 254.

Second Exemption.] “Agreement or memorandum for the hire of any labourer, artificer, manufacturer, or menial servant."

An assignment of an apprentice is not within this exemption. R. v. S. Paul's, Bed ford, 6 T. R. 452. Firemen and stokers on board foreign steamers are within it. Wilson v. Zulueta, 14 Q. B. 405; Cornforth v. Danube & Black Sea Ry. Co., 2 F. & F. 197. So, a person hired to take charge of glebe, dairy, &c., at a salary and share of clear profit. R. v. Wortley, 2 Den. C. C. 333; 21 L. J., N. C. 44.

By the general exemption (3), at the end of the schedule, "bonds, contracts, and agreements entered into in the United Kingdom for or relating


to the service in any of Her Majesty's colonies or possessions abroad of any person as an artificer, clerk, domestic servant, handicraftsman, mechanic, gardener, servant in husbandry, or labourer," are exempt from all duty.

Third Eremption.] “Agreement, letter, or memorandum made for or relating to the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise."

Cases within the third Exemption.] An undertaking to guarantee the payment of goods to be furnished to third persons. W'arrington v. Furbor, 8 Èast, 242, accord. Sadler v. Johnson, 16 M. & W. 775; Chatfield v. Cox, 18 Q. B. 321 ; 21 L. J., Q. B. 279. 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. An agreement to make a chattel and deliver it within a certain time; Pinner v. Arnold, 2 C. M. & R. 613; Lee v. Griffin, 1 B. & S. 272; 30 L. J., Q. B. 252; though it was formerly held that a contract to make goods for sale was not within the exemption. Buxton v. Bedall, 3 East, 303. An agreement for the sale of chimney-pieces, the vendor “ to finish them in a tradesmanlike manner.” Hughes v. Breeds, 2 C. & P. 159. A receipt for the price of a horse containing a warranty of soundness. Skrine v. Elmore, 2 Camp. 407. An agreement for a crop growing in a close, and conferring no interest in the land. Parker v. Staniland, 11 East, 362; Warwick v. Bruce, 2 M. & S. 205; Evans v. Roberts, 5 B. & C. 829; Watts v. Friend, 10 B. & C. 446; Jones v. Flint, 10 Ad. & E. 753. An agreement for the purchase of timber, though the trees are growing: Smith v. Surman, 9 B. & C. 561. An agreement to supply a house with water. W. Middleser Waterworks v. Suwerkropp, M. & M. 409. Some of the above cases were decided on the Stat. of Frauds, ss. 4 and 17; but they are authorities on the Stamp Act also. A memorandum by the defendant of an advance made to him by the plaintiff, an auctioneer, on receipt of books for sale by the plaintiff by auction, requires no stamp. Southgate v. Bohn, 16 M. & W. 34.

Cases not within the third Exemption.) 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. & A. 778. An agreement for the sale of goods and goodwill. South v. Finch, 3 N. C. 506. And now see 52 & 53 Vict. c. 42, s. 15, post, p. 247. A contract for the erection of fixtures; semb. per Parke, B., Pinner v. Arnold, 2 C. M. & R. 613; or the sale of railway shares, Knight v. Barber, 16 M. & W. 66. So, an agreement for the sale of growing crops, conferring an interest in the land; Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 East, 602 ; Waddington v. Bristow, 2 B. & P. 453; Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt. 38; or a sale of growing underwood, to be cut by the purchaser; Scorell v. Boxall, 1 Y. & J. 396; or an agreement to print a book, and supply the paper; Clay v. Yates, 1 H. & N. 73; 25 L. J., Ex. 237 (decided on the Statute of Frauds, ss. 4 and 17). So, a contract under seal for the sale of goods. Per Bayley, J., Clayton v. Burtenshaw, 5 B. & C. 45.

« PreviousContinue »