
    W. D. Mays v. R. A. Rutledge and others.
    In an action by an indorsee of a promissory note against the makers, the note, being offered in evidence by the plaintiff, was objected to by the defendants, because it was apparent upon the face of the note that the requisite revenue stamp had not been affixed by the makers, but by the indorsee; which objection was sustained, and verdict and judgment rendered in favor of defendants. Held, that the court erred in sustaining the objection of defendants to the introduction of the note in evidence before the jury. (Schultz v. Herndon, 32 Texas, 390, cited by the court.)
    Error from Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. J. J. Thornton.
    There is no occasion for a statement of facts.
    
      J. P. White, for plaintiff in error.
    
      John Ireland, for defendants in error.
   Walker, J.

The record before us presents the proceedings in an action brought upon a promissory note, made by the defendants in error to I. A. Paschal, and by Paschal indorsed to the plaintiff in error.

The note was offered in evidence, but showing upon its face that the required revenue stamp had not been affixed to it by the maker, but by the indorsee, the note was excluded from the jury.

The judgment of the District Court in this behalf was erroneous. (See Schultz v. Herndon, 32 Texas 390; Id., 774, and subsequent cases.)

The plaintiff in error is entitled to a judgment in this court for the amount of his note, principal and interest, which the clerk is directed to enter.

Reversed and rendered.  