Supreme Court decision · Commercial Law

Wright v. Smith

G.R. No. L-2763 · Promulgated March 3, 1906 · Ponente: Willard

In brief

This case is about the validity of a promissory note without a revenue stamp, where the court affirmed the note's enforceability despite the appellant's objections.

Promissory Note, Revenue Stamp, Royal Decree, Note Validity, Debt Recovery

Related cases

G.R. No. L-2357 Nelle v. Baer, Senior & Co. (Previous decision in Commercial Law)
G.R. No. L-2020 Germann & Co. v. Yangco (Next decision in Commercial Law)

Full text

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2763 March 3, 1906

W.L. WRIGHT, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ALFRED F. SMITH, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Thos. D. Aitken for appellants.
W.L. Wright, in his own behalf.

WILLARD, J.:

This action was brought to recover on a promissory note dated June 20, 1904. The only claim presented by the appellant, the defendant below, is that the note was void because no revenue stamp was placed upon it, citing article 11 of the royal decree of May 29, 1894.

This contention has been decided adversely to the appellant in the case of Rodriguez vs. Martinez,¹ No. 1913, September 29, 1905.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs. After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and the case remanded to the lower court for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

¹ Page 67, supra.