
    COMPETENCY AS EVIDENCE OF A NOTE WITHOUT REVENUE STAMP AFFIXED.
    Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County.
    Carl J. Frech vs. W. E. Crew.
    Decided, March 30, 1923.
    
      Evidence — No Provision for Invalidating a Note to Which no Revenue Stamp is Affixed Competency of Note as Evidence of the Debt.
    
    where a promissory note is offered in evidence to which no United States revenue stamp has been affixed and counsel for plaintiff thereupon asks leave of court to affix a revenue stamp—
    
      Held: That it is proper to grant the request, allow the stamp to be affixed and permit the note to be introduced in evidence.
    
      McConnaughey & Shea, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
    W,. S. Rhotehamel, Attorney for Defendant.
   McCray, J.

This is an action upon a promissory note. The claim of the defendant was that his signature was secured under duress. The testimony tended to show that the defendant had been the. agent and servant of the plaintiff, driving a laundry wagon and collecting from certain customers of the plaintiff. Some of the funds he had failed to pay over to the plaintiff The amount had accumulated until the defendant had been requested to give a note in settlement. Tie did this but failed to pay the note when it became due.

The ease was submitted to the jury and in the course of the trial the note was introduced in evidence. Upon objection being made, the attention of the court was called, to the fact that it did not bear a revenue stamp. Plaintiff’s counsel thereupon made an application in open court, in the presence of the jury, for the privilege of placing a revenue stamp upon the note. This privilege was granted and the stamp was affixed to the note.

The verdict of the jury was in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. A motion for a new trial is now before us. It is argued that, the court erred in allowing the revenue stamp to be placed upon the note after the case had proceeded to trial.

In the United States Revenue Act of 1919, Vol. 1, United States Compiled Statutes (1916 Supp.), pp. 1269 and 1279-9, no provision is found invalidating a note because of the absence of a revenue stamp.

In the absence of a strict provision invalidating a note for failure to affix a revenue stamp, it would seem to be almost a denial of justice to refuse to allow a case to proceed and a judgment to be rendered, for this reason, upon a promissory note otherwise valid. The purpose of the revenue act in question clearly is to secure revenue to support the government. Counsel should therefore be permitted to remedy the oversight by paying the tax and cancelling the stamp. This ruling is supported by ample authority. Stewart v. Hopkins, 30 O. S., 502 at 522; Campbell v. Wilcox, 10 Wallace (U. S.), 421; 23 R. C. L., p. 1002, Sec. 38; Rowe v. Bowman, 183 Mass., 488; and vol. 40 U. S. R. S. at Large, pp. 1133, 1135, 1137. Section U364 of the General Code of Ohio requires us to disregard any errors or defects in the proceedings which do not .affect the substantial rights of the parties.

The motion for a new trial is overruled. 
      
       Affirmed by the Court of Appeals, April 12, 1924.
     