LAW STUDENTS' MAGAZINE. FROM JANUARY, 1854, TO JUNE, 1854. Vol. VI.—New Series. [CONTINUED UNDER THE TITLE OF THE LAW CHRONICLE.} LONDON: THOMAS DAY, 13, CAREY STREET, LINCOLN'S INN, Law Bookseller and Publisher. 1854. 3 LETTERS ON SIMPLE CONTRACTS. [Continued from vol. v., p. 497.] Letter V. Stamps on agreements-Contracts not stamped-The Stamp Acts-Exempted agreements for hire of labourers, sale of goods, letters between traders by post-Executory contracts-Of the value of £20-Documents under seal, and under hand-Several contracts-Incorporation of other agreements-Progressive duty— Proposals-Acknowledgments—Alterations in contracts—Agreements in foreign countries-Statute of Limitations-Unstamped agreementsConstruction of Stamp Acts. Stamp Acts do not require contract to be in writing.-We now proceed to notice the provisions of the Stamp Acts imposing a stamp duty on agreements or contracts, which have been reduced to writing. It is to be observed that the Stamp Acts apply only to agreements or contracts in writing, and that they do not compel parties to reduce their contracts or agreements into writing, but leave the parties, if so minded, to rest their contract upon oral testimony, and so avoid the payment of that duty which, if the contract had been reduced into writing, would have been payable. In this respect the provisions of the Stamp Acts present a contrast to those of the Statute of Frauds, and this distinction leads to very important differences. Thus, if there should be a written unstamped agreement, yet if the party can prove the terms of it by the oral testimony of witnesses not cognizant of, or not examined as to the existence of the written contract, he may do so, for as the existence of the written contract is not shown by the plaintiff's witnesses, there is nothing to prevent the oral testimony from being received. It will not do for the defendant afterwards to produce the written unstamped agreement, with a view to defeat the plaintiff's claim, for the courts will not notice it, and, therefore, the oral evidence is the only evidence which the courts have to guide them. In such a case, if the defendant be desirous to avail himself of the written agreement, he must produce the same duly stamped, and then, on the principle that it is evidence of the contract superior to that which depends on the mere memories of witnesses, it will be taken as containing the real contract between the parties (see Stevens v. Pinney, 2 Moore, 349; Curtis v. Greathead, 1 Adol. and Ellis, 167; Roscoe's Evid. pp. 2, 3, 5th edit.). It is a conclusion of law that where parties have agreed by parol [orally], and afterwards reduce that agreeVOL. VI., NEW SERIES. |