Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 145: |
Line 145: |
|
| |
|
| ===Revenue stamps=== | | ===Revenue stamps=== |
| The better doctrine seems to be that, where an unstamped instrument is declared to be void by the ''lex loci contractus'', it will be void everywhere,<ref>Satterthwaite v. Doughty, H N. C. 314, 59 AmD 554; Fant v. Miller, 17 Gratt. (58 Va.) 47; Clegg v. Levy, 3 Campb. 166; Bristow v. Sequevllle, 5 Exch. 275, 155 Reprint 118; Alves v. Hodgson, 7 T.R. 241, 101 Renrlnt 953.</ref> unless the foreign statute simply renders such instrument, when unstamped, inadmissible in evidence, when the statute will have no extraterritorial effect.<ref>Fant v. Miller, 17 Gratt. (58 Va.) 47; Lambert v. Jones, 2 Patt. & H. (Va.) l44.</ref> In some jurisdictions, however, the rule is laid down that domestic courts will not take notice of the revenue laws of foreign countries, and therefore that a contract will be enforced in such forum, although invalid for want of proper stamps in the country wnere it was entered into.<ref>Kohn v. The Renaisance, 5 La. Ann. 25, 52 AmD 577; Skinner v. Tinker, 34 Barb. (N.Y.) 333; Andrews v. Herriot, 4 Cow. (N.Y.) 508 note; Ludlow v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. (N.Y.) 94 Armendiez v. Serna, 40 Tex. 291; James v. Catherwood, 3 D.&R. 190, 16 ECL 165; Wynne v. Jackson. Z Russ. 351, 3 EngCh 351, 38 Reprint 368.</ref>
| | |
|
| |
|
| ==Legality== | | ==Legality== |