Firmin v Crucifix and Staff
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1831 |
| Date | 22 June 1831 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 893
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Prior proceedings with annotations, 1 C & J. 549
Adjourned Sittings in London, after Trinity Term, 1831. June 22nd, 1831 firmin v crucifix and staff. (The statements in a special plea, on which judgment has been given for the plaintiff on demurrer, cannot be used at the trial of the cause as an admission on the (a) 4 B. & A. 204. That was not the case of a bond, but of a bill of exchange However, Loid Tenterden, the only Judge who gave an opinion, and for aught that appears by the report, the only one at the time in Court, said that it had been the constant practice under similar provisions applicable to bonds to measure the stamp duty by the principal sum secured (6) 3 Camp 40. That was the case of a bill of exchange, drawn for " £50 sterling, with all legal interest for the same." The bill had a 2s stamp, which, under the Stamp Aet then in force, covered the amount of £50 only. Garrow, for the defendant, contended that the stamp was insufficient, as the bill was to carry interest from the date of it, and, therefore, a larger sum was payable upon it than £50 The defendant had paid money into Court, and Lord Ellenborough decided that he was thereby precluded from taking the objection His Lordship was also inclined to think that the stamp was sufficient. Gairow afterwards moved the Court on the same ground The Judges did not decide that the stamp was sufficient ; but were clearly of opinion that the objection could not be taken after the payment of money into Court. (c) 1 B. & Ad. 343. A bond was given in a penalty of £2000, conditioned for the payment of all such sums as the obligees (bankers) should advance to the obligors on account of the accepting or paying any bills, &c to the amount of £1000, together with such lawful charges and allowances as were usually charged by bankers in such cases, and interest-Held, that a £5 stamp (the proper stamp for a bond given to- secure a sum exceeding £500, but not exceeding £1000), was insufficient for this bond, which was to secure the bankers' charges as well as the £1000 894 MEREDITH V. FLAXMAN 5 CAR, & P. 98. record by the defendant ; but the case must be tried on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial