Cassidy v. St. Germain

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Cassidy v. St. Germain

46 A. 35, 22 R.I. 53, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 33

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 18, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 46 A. 35 (Cassidy v. St. Germain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cassidy v. St. Germain, 46 A. 35, 22 R.I. 53, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 33 (R.I. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) The United States internal revenue law of 1898 declares invalid and of no effect instruments from which *54 stamps have been omitted with intent to evade the provisions-of the act. There being nothing to show such intent in this-case, the assignment in question was not shown to be invalid on that account. An exception was taken on the admissibility of the assignment in evidence, because of the omission of a stamp. Under the revenue law of 1866, which is similar in this respect to the present law, it was held that the act-affected the use of the document as evidence only in the courts-of the United States, and not in State courts. Carpenter v. Snelling, 97 Mass. 452; Greene v. Holway, 101 Mass. 243; Moore v. Quirk, 105 Mass. 49; Griffin v. Ranney, 35 Conn. 239. Such also was the practice in this State under the revenue law of 1866.

George E. Hasie and P. H. Quinn, for plaintiff. Job S. Carpenter, for claimant of fund.

The stamp was required only on the power of attorney which was embodied in this assignment, but' as the power of attorney was not necessary to the title of the claimant, it did not affect the validity of the assignment. There was no error in the admission of the assignment as evidence, and the exception is overruled.

The case is remitted to the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

(1) The United States internal revenue law of 1898 declares invalid and of no effect instruments from which *54 stamps have been omitted with intent to evade the provisions-of the act. There being nothing to show such intent in this-case, the assignment in question was not shown to be invalid on that account. An exception was taken on the admissibility of the assignment in evidence, because of the omission of a stamp. Under the revenue law of 1866, which is similar in this respect to the present law, it was held that the act-affected the use of the document as evidence only in the courts-of the United States, and not in State courts. Carpenter v. Snelling, 97 Mass. 452; Greene v. Holway, 101 Mass. 243; Moore v. Quirk, 105 Mass. 49; Griffin v. Ranney, 35 Conn. 239. Such also was the practice in this State under the revenue law of 1866.

George E. Hasie and P. H. Quinn, for plaintiff. Job S. Carpenter, for claimant of fund.

The stamp was required only on the power of attorney which was embodied in this assignment, but' as the power of attorney was not necessary to the title of the claimant, it did not affect the validity of the assignment. There was no error in the admission of the assignment as evidence, and the exception is overruled.

The case is remitted to the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A. 35, 22 R.I. 53, 1900 R.I. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassidy-v-st-germain-ri-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack