
    James Dudley versus George A. Wells & Trustee.
    
    To authorize the Court to declare an unstamped promissory note “ invalid and of no effect,” it must appear that the omission to affix the stamp, provided for in the Act of Congress of March 3, 1865, was the result of an “ intent to evade” the statute.
    On Exceptions.
    The trustee disclosed that, on the 15th of Dec., 1865, he purchased a horse of the principal defendant, for which the former agreed to pay the latter $45, in five months from the day of sale, and gave him his negotiable promissory note on five months; that, on Jan. 1, 1866, the promisor paid to the promisee’s wife, $10, tobe indorsed on said note; that, on April 17, 1866, he was served with the writ in this action ; that, about two weeks thereafter ward, one Daniel Moore notified the trustee that he had purchased said note of the principal defendant; that he paid said note at maturity to said Moore; and that, at the time of the service of the writ upon him, he owed the principal defendant nothing, except as disclosed.
    In answer to specific interrogatories, the trustee declared that there was no U. S. revenue stamp upon the note when given, nor when he was served with the writ.
    The presiding Judge discharged the alleged trustee upon the disclosure and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
    
      Libbey & Snow, for the plaintiff.
    
      Gazlin, for the trustee.
   Appleton, C. J.

By the Act of Congress of March 3, 1865, a draft or note is declared "invalid and of no effect” when there is an "intent to evade the provisions of this Act.” To authorize the Court to declare an unstamped instrument void, there must be an intent to evade the law. Whether there was such an intent or not is not made to appear. The inquiry is not made of the trustee, nor is there any proof on the subject. The note is not shown to be absolutely " invalid and of no effect.” Hitchcock v. Sawyer, 39 Vermont, 413; Tobey v. Chipman, 13 Allen, 123; Govern v. Littlefield, 13 Allen, 127; Willey v. Robinson, 13 Allen, 128; McGovern v. Hoesback, 53 Penn. State Rep., 177. Exceptions overruled.

Cutting, Walton, Dickerson, Barrows and Taplev, JJ., concurred.  