be delivered to the payee, or some person on his behalf, have the same duty as on a bill of exchange for the like sum payable to bearer or order.

Inland bills, drafts, or orders for the payment of any sum of money weekly, monthly, or at any other stated periods, if made payable to the bearer or to order, or if delivered to the payee or some person on his behalf, where the total amount of the money thereby made payable shall be specified therein, or can be ascertained therefrom, bear the same duty as on a bill payable to bearer or order, on demand, for a sum equal to such total amount. And where the total amount of the money thereby made payable shall be indefinite, the same duty as on a bill, on demand, for the sum therein expressed only.

And the following instruments shall be deemed and taken to be inland bills, drafts, or orders, for the payment of money within the intent and meaning of this schedule; viz.

All drafts or orders for the payment of any sum of money by a bill or promissory note, or for the delivery of any such bill or note in payment or satisfaction of any sum of money, where such drafts or orders shall require a payment or delivery to be made to the bearer, or to order, or shall be delivered to the payee, or some person on his or her behalf.

All receipts given by any banker or bankers, or other person or persons, for money received, which shall entitle the person or persons paying the money, or the bearer of such receipts, to receive the like sum from any third person or persons.

And all bills, drafts, or orders for the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available, or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen, if the same shall be made payable to the bearer or to order, or if the same shall be delivered to the payee, or some person on his or her behalf.

"Messrs.

What are bills, &c., within the schedule.] It was the object of the legislature, in framing this last provision, to treat as promissory notes and bills of exchange, and to subject to stamp duty, such instruments as, being payable on a contingency or out of a particular fund, could not, in strictness, fall under that denomination. Per Lord Ellenborough C. J., Firbank v. Bell, 1 B. & A. 36.; and see Jones v. Simpson, 2 B. & C. 321. In order to prove the payment of money pursuant to order, the following letter was given in evidence :B. and H. When the mahogany, per Regent, is sold, you will please pay over to Messrs. P. 1500., in such bills as you receive from the said sale. S. Mann." Messrs. P. inclosed this letter in another, addressed by them to B. and H.; and B. and H., in reply, wrote, promising to pay over the money. The letter from Messrs. P. was stamped with an agreement stamp. It was objected that the letter from Mann was an order for payment of money out of a fund which might or might not be available, and that it ought to have been stamped accordingly, and of this opinion was the court. Firbank v. Bell, i B. & A. 36. F. and Co. wrote to S. and Co. the following letter:We request you will pay to Messrs. II. and Son, or their order, out of the first proceeds that become due of our stock of gunpowder now in your charge, 600l., and charge the same to our account."

66

S. and Co., in answer, stated that they had no objection to pay as directed, provided they were in funds for that purpose, and subject to the payment of their advances; and other letters passed on the subject. The two first letters were stamped with an agreement stamp. Held that this case fell within the authority of Firbank v. Bell; and that the first letter was not admissible, not having been stamped as a bill. Butts v. Swann, 2 B. & B. 78. But in order to come within this clause, the instrument should be for the payment of a specified sum; and therefore, where A., having consigned goods to B., sent him the following order," Pay to A. B. the proceeds of a shipment of twelve bales of goods, value about 2000/., consigned by me to you;" and B., by writing, consented to pay over the full amount of the net proceeds of the goods, it was held that neither of these instruments came within the above clause. Jones v. Simpson, 2 B. & C. 318.; and see Rosc. Dig. Bills of Exchange, p. 31. Where the order was to pay half the net proceeds to R. and Co., " provided the same shall not exceed 5000l.," the stamp duty was considered to attach. Hutchinson v. Heyworth, 9 A. & E. 375. 400. Where the order for payment (not being to bearer or order) is not to be delivered over to the payee or to any third person on his behalf, but is to be kept by the person to whom it is addressed, for his own security, it is not a bill within the act; though the party who receives the order may have afterwards given an undertaking to the payee to pay him the money. S. C. ibid. Where the creditor sends an account to his debtor, requesting him, at the foot of it, to pay the amount to A. B., and hands the account to A. B. to collect it on his (the creditor's) behalf, this is not a bill of exchange within the act. Norris v. Solomon, 2 M. & Rob. 266.

The word date in the schedule of the act means the actual date on the face of the bill; and a bill payable at two months' date, and properly stamped as such, is good, though post-dated and issued before the date; the party being liable to a penalty only. Williams v. Jarrett, 5 B. & Ad. 32.

Foreign bills.] A FOREIGN BILL of exchange (or bill of exchange drawn in, but payable out of, Great Britain), if drawn singly, and not in a set, bears the same duty as on an inland bill of the same amount and

tenour.

Foreign Bills of Exchange, drawn in Sets according to the custom of merchants, for every Bill of each Set,

A bill drawn in Ireland with blanks for the sum, the date, and the drawee's name, and transmitted to England in order to have the blanks

filled up, does not require an English stamp. Snaith v. Mingay, 1 M. & S. 87. Crutchly v. Mann, 5 Taunt. 529. So a bill sketched out and accepted here, and transmitted to a person abroad for his signature as drawer is a foreign bill, and does not require an English stamp. Boehm v. Campbell, Gow, 56. A bill drawn in England on a person abroad, and accepted by him payable in England, is an inland bill, and must be stamped as such. Amner v. Clark, 2 C. M. & R. 468.

Stamp on re-issued bill.] A bill payable to the drawer's order, and taken up by him, may be re-issued without a fresh stamp. Callow v. Lawrence, 3 M. & S. 97.; Hubbard v. Jackson, 4 Bing. 390. But a bill payable to the order of a third person, and paid by the drawer, cannot be re-issued by him; for it would wrongfully charge the payee. Beck v. Robley, 1 H. Bl. 89. (n)

What alteration of a bill requires a new stamp.] If a bill or note is altered in a material part, though by the consent of all parties, and though the alteration be made by a stranger (Master v. Miller, 2 H. Bl. 141), after it has been once issued, it requires a new stamp; Bayl. on Bills, 89, 4th ed.; and such alteration not only makes a new stamp necessary, but vacates the bill (independently of the stamp laws), except as between the parties consenting to such alteration. Ibid; see Downes v. Richardson, 5 B. & A. 680. But the alteration of a bill by the drawer, though it prevents him from suing on the bill, will not prevent him from suing the acceptor upon the original consideration after the bill has become due. Atkinson v. Hawdon, 2 A. & E. 628.

An alteration in the date of a bill, payable after date. Wilson v. Justice, 2 Peake, Ca. 96., Outhwaite v. Luntley, 4 Camp. 179.; or by inserting words rendering a bill or note negotiable, which was not so originally, Kershaw v. Cox, 3 Esp. 246.; or in the consideration, Knill v. Williams, 10 East, 437.; is a material alteration, and requires re-stamping. So where the drawer, without the consent of the acceptor, added the words "payable at Mr. B.'s, Chiswell Street," to the acceptance, this alteration was held to be material; Cowie v. Halsall, 4 B. & A. 197., decided after Rowe v. Young, 2 B. & B. 165. And a similar alteration has been held to be material, since the statute 1 & 2 G. 4. c. 78. ; for the right of an indorsee to sue his indorser would, according to the altered bill, be complete upon default made at the banker's, and notice thereof; whereas, in truth, the acceptor, not having in reality undertaken to pay there, would have committed no default by such non-payment. Macintosh v. Haydon, R. & M.362.; see Marson v. Petit, 1 Camp. 82.(n) If the alteration was merely the correction of a mistake in furtherance of the original intent of the parties, as inserting the words "or order" in a bill intended to be negotiable, it will not require a new stamp. Byrom .v. Thompson, 11 A. & E. 31. So a mistake in the date may be corrected. Brutt v. Picard, R. & M. 37. See Hutchins v. Scott, 2 M. & W. 809. An alteration in the place of payment mentioned in the acceptance, made by the acceptor at the request of the payee six weeks after the bill had been delivered to the latter, was held to be immaterial. Walter v. Cubley, 2 C. & M. 151.

What is such an issuing as to render a subsequent alteration fatal.] A bill is prima facie considered as issued as soon as it is passed away by the

drawer, or accepted by the drawee, and not before. Bayley on Bills, 93., 4th ed. An exchange of acceptances is an issuing; Cardwell v. Martin, 9 East, 190.; but a bill is not issued so as to make an alteration fatal, until it is in the hands of a person entitled to make a claim thereon. Downes v. Richardson, 5 B. & A. 674. A bill altered before negotiation, at the request of the acceptor, may be enforced against him. Ibid. Kennerly v. Nash, 1 Stark. 452.; and see Jacobs v. Hart, 2 Stark. 45. ; Stevens v. Lloyd, M. & M. 292.

The onus of proving that the alteration was made before negotiation lies upon the party suing on it. Johnson v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 Stark. 313. Henman v. Dickinson, 5 Bing. 183. And where the alteration is visible, it cannot be left to the jury to say, on the mere inspection without further evidence, whether it was made at or after the original making of the bill. Knight v. Clements, 8 A. & E. 215. ; and Bishop v. Chambre, M. & M. 116., there explained.

An objection to a bill or note, for want of a proper stamp, must be taken before it is read. 2 Stark. Ev. 293., 1st ed.

Bills of Sale of Ships.

By 6 G. 4. c. 41. s. 1. bills of sale, assignments, and other instruments for the sale, transfer, or disposition of ships, or of any interest in them, either absolutely or by way of mortgage, are exempted from stamp duty.

Bills of Lading.

Bills of lading for goods, merchandise, or effects to be exported, or carried coastwise, require a 3s. stamp. 55 G. 3. c. 184., schedule, part 1.

Bonds.

A bond, conditioned for the payment by quarterly payments of an annual rent, has been held to be within 48 G. 3. c. 149. (similar provision, 55 G. 3. c. 184.), which imposes a duty on bonds given as a security" for the payment of any definite and certain sum of money," and must be stamped accordingly. Attree v. Anscomb, 2 M. & S. 88. But a deed of covenant to pay A. a fixed salary, A. covenanting not to set up a shop within certain limits, with a penalty of 600/. on breach by either party, requires only a 35s. stamp. Mounsey v. Stephenson, 7 B. & C. 403. The clauses in 48 G. 3. c. 149. and 55 G. 3. c. 184., imposing a stamp upon bonds given as a security for the repayment of any sum to be thereafter lent, advanced, or paid, or which may become due upon an account current, is to be construed as applying to the condition of the bond without regard to the amount of the penalty, which is not to be considered as limiting the extent of the security where such bond is given to secure the payment of a final balance or account stated. Scott v. Allsopp, 2 Price, 20. Williams v. Rawlinson, 3 Bing. 71. A bond to secure damages and costs, requires a 35s. stamp. Lopez v. De Tastet, 8 Taunt. 712. A bond conditioned for the payment of 1000l. and interest on a day certain requires only a 51. stamp. Dixon v. Robinson, 1 M. & Rob. 115. Barker v. Smark, 7 M. & W. 590. So a bond conditioned for the payment of money and interest, and also for the performance of collateral acts, requires only the ad valorem stamp appropriated to the principal sum, if

that sum exceed the stamp (17. 15s.) which the collateral matter would require if it stood alone. Dearden v. Binns,1 M. & R. 130. But where a bond was given to secure 1000l. and banker's charges for commission, a 51. stamp was held insufficient. Dickson v. Cass, 1 B. & Ad. 343. Paddon v. Bartlett, 2 A. & E. 9. A bond conditioned to secure a London banker from the balance arising from paying bills, &c., for a country banker, containing a stipulation in the condition that the whole amount of monies to be ultimately recoverable should not exceed the sum of 1000l., does not require a 257. stamp. Lloyd v. Heathcote, 1 C. & M. 336. In a debt on a bond (with a 17. stamp), to secure a sum due on an indenture of even date, it was held necessary to produce the indenture in order to see whether it required an ad valorem stamp. Walmesley v. Brierly, 1 M. & Rob. 529. But this is not necessary where it appears by recital that the other deed is such an instrument as requires it. S. C. and Quin v. King, 1 M. & W. 42.

Cognovit.

A cognovit requires no stamp, for it is a mere acknowledgment of an account, unless matter of agreement be contained in it; as if it contains an agreement to take the debt by instalments. Ames v. Hill, 2 B. & P. 150. Reardon v. Swaby, 4 East, 188. An agreement to grant time, entered into at the same time on a separate paper, does not render an agreement stamp on the cognovit necessary. Morley v. Hall, 2 Dowl.

P. C. 494.

Deeds.

A deed of any kind, not otherwise charged in the schedule of 55 G. 3. c. 184., nor expressly exempted, requires a 35s. stamp, with a progressive duty on the number of words above 1080, if the whole number amounts to 2160.

An agreement, under seal, for a lease requires a 35s. stamp; for it is neither chargeable as a lease, nor as an agreement not under seal. Clayton v. Burtenshaw, 5 B. & C. 41.

A deed, indorsed on another deed as a farther security for advances to be made under the first deed, was held exempted by 48 G. 3. c. 149. from the ad valorem duty, the first deed being stamped with an ad valorem stamp. Robinson v. Macdonnell, 5 M. & S. 228. A conveyance by debtors to trustees in trust to sell and with the proceeds to discharge, first, debts due to the trustees, and then debts due to other creditors, with a resulting trust for the original debtors, does not require an ad valorem stamp as upon a sale or mortgage under 55 G. 3. c. 184. Coates v. Perry, 3 B. & B. 48.

Foreign Instruments.

If a stamp is necessary to render an instrument valid in one of the British colonies, it cannot be received in evidence without that stamp here. Clegg v. Levy, 3 Camp. 167. Alves v. Hodgson, 7 T. R. 241. But, as a general rule, our courts do not take notice of foreign revenue laws; therefore an unstamped receipt, given in France, will be evidence here, though the French law requires that it should be stamped. James v. Catherwood, 3 Dow. & Ry. 190. A deed, made in England to be carried into effect abroad, must be stamped. Stonelake