Case ID: ala_57/html/0509-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRICKELL, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bibb and Falkner, Ex’rs v. Bonds.
    
      Action on Promissory Note.
    
    1. Promissory note; when inadmissible as evidence, because not containing• revenue stamp. — The fact that a promissory note sued on is not properly stamped, is not sufficient to authorize its rejection as evidence, unless it be shown that the omission to stamp was with the intent to evade payment of revenue.
    2. Specific objection to evidence; effect of it. — A specific objection to evidence is an implied admission that it is not obnoxious on other grounds ; and, on appeal, no other ground of objection can be considered.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Chambers.
    Tried before the Hon. Littleberry Strange.
    This action was brought at the spring term, 1869, of said court, by the appellants against appellees. On the trial the plaintiffs offered in evidence the two promissory notes sued on, to which the defendant objected, stating, as his reason,, that said notes were not stamped with any internal revenue stamps of the United States. The objection wa,s sustained,, and the plaintiff excepted. The plaintiffs then placed proper-revenue stamps upon the notes, and canceled them in the presence of the court, and again offered the notes in evidence,, which were ruled out on defendant’s objection, to which plaintiffs excepted. The plaintiffs were then compelled to-take a new suit, and now appeal to this court, assigning the rulings of the court below as error.
    T. H. Watts, and J. Falicner, for appellants.
    J. J. Robinson, contra.
    
    No briefs came to Reporter.
   BRICKELL, C. J.

There can be no question, the Circuit Court was in error in sustaining the specific objection made to the admissibility of the notes on which the action is* founded. All the authorities concur that unless it is shown the omission to stamp an instrument was with the intent to evade the internal revenue laws, neither its validity or its competency as an instrument of evidence is affected.—Perryman v. Greenville, 51 Ala. 507.

Nor can the inquiry now be made whether the notes were not irrelevant under the single issue the record shows •to have been, formed. A specific objection to evidence is an implied admission that it is not obnoxious to any other, and ■it has long been the practice of this court not to consider ,any other on error.

The nonsuit must be set aside, and the cause remanded.