was admitted without a stamp. Drant v. Brown, 3 B. & C. 665; Hawkins v. Warre, Id. 690; Hudspeth v. Yarnold, 9 C. B. 625. In Vaughton v. Brine, 1 M. & Gr. 359, a resolution, signed by the provisional committee of a company to employ the plaintiff as secretary was received in evidence unstamped, as not amounting to an agreement. Where a minute was made at a meeting, of a resolution, by the defendants and others, to make an alteration in the terms of a previous contract between them and the plaintiff, and to allow him an additional sum for extra trouble, and this minute was read over to the plaintiff, and assented to by him, Rolfe, B., held, at Nisi Prius, that the resolution could not be admitted without a stamp. Lucas v. Beach, Id. 417. And in Knight v. Barber, 16 M. & W. 67, the defendant, after having given the plaintiff a verbal order for 50 shares in a railway company, signed a memorandum that he had bought of the plaintiff 50 shares in the company at 10l. a share, which memorandum was handed to the plaintiff. It was held that this memorandum required an agreement stamp. "A written instrument, to come within the terms of this clause of the Stamp Act, must have been made with the intention of containing within itself the terms of an agreement between the parties.” Id. 70, per Parke, B. In Chadwick v. Clarke, 1 C. B. 700, a draft agreement forwarded by the plaintiff to the defendant's solicitor, and sent back by him on the same day with certain alterations, to which the plaintiff did not object, was held inadmissible (although it had no signature) for want of an agreement stamp. And per curiam the words "under hand only" in this part of the Stamp Act, merely refer to instruments not under seal. But see 6 C. B. 700, n. An agreement to enlarge the time for performing another agreement requires a new stamp, where the former one required to be stamped. Bacon v. Simpson, 3 M & W. 78. An instrument operating as an attornment only, requires no stamp. Doe d. Linsey v. Edward, 5 Ad. & E. 95; Doe d. Wright v. Smith, 8 Ad. & E. 255. So, a mere acknowledgment. Thus, in an action against an attorney, the plaintiff gave in evidence the following unstamped letter:-"I have this day received a bill of exchange for 300l., drawn, &c., which I hold as your attorney to recover the value of from the respective parties, or to make such other arrangement for your benefit as may appear to me in my professional capacity reasonable and proper: Held, that this letter was a mere acknowledgment of the duty which the party took upon himself to perform, and that it therefore required no stamp. Langdon v. Wilson, 7 B. & C. 640, n.; Mullett v. Huchison, 7 B. & C. 639; De Porquet v. Page, 15 Q. B. 1073; 20 L. J., Q. B. 28. So, a memorandum, "I acknowledge that you have for my accommodation accepted a bill for, &c., and I will provide for the same when due." Notley v. Webb, 5 C. B. 834. So, a memorandum put in to show the assent of a party to an act done under a previous agreement by him, already in proof, in which the terms of the agreement are recapitulated. Marshall v. Powell, 9 Q. B. 779. So, an acknowledgment by the defendant of the deposit of goods with him requires no stamp though given in evidence in an action against him for not redelivering them. Blackwell v. M'Naughtan, 1 Q. B. 127. But now see Warrant for Goods, post, p. 239. "Borrowed of A. 100l. for one or two months. Cheque for 100l. on-bank :" Held an acknowledgment only, and not an agreement or promissory note. Hyne v. Dewdney, 21 L. J., Q. B. 278. But an acknowledgment signed by the defendant, that he holds the land as tenant to the plaintiff on certain terms, cannot be put in evidence by the defendant to show that a notice to quit was irregular, without an agreement stamp. Doe d. Frankis v. Frankis, 11 Ad. & E. 792. And such an agreement may now require a lease stamp, vide post, p. 241. A broker's note of the purchase of shares, sent to his Agreements. Exemptions. 221 principal, does not require an agreement stamp; Tomkins v. Savory, 9 B. & C. 704; it is now, however, liable to a duty of 1d. Vide Contract Note, post, p. 234. The 9 Geo. 4, c. 14, s. 8, exempts from agreement duty any memorandum or other writing made necessary by that act; thus, a qualified promise to pay, put in evidence not to prove the debt but to rebut the Statute of Limitations, is exempt. Morris v. Dixon, 4 Ad. & E. 845. See also cases post, pp. 229, 230. This exemption is continued by sect. 3 of the present act, vide ante, p. 208. First Exemption.] not of the value of 51." Agreement or memorandum the matter whereof is Under 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, sched. 1, the amount was 201., and under that act many of the cases cited below were decided. The statute only applies when the value of the contract is measurable. Thus a contract of marriage may be proved by unstamped letters. Oxford v. Cole, 2 Stark. 351. The value must appear on the instrument, or be capable of being ascertained at the time of making. Parke, B., Taylor v. Steele, 16 M. & W. 665; Lloyd v. Mansel, 1 L. M. & P. 130; 19 L. J., Q. B. 192. Where the agreement was to give up a shop and goodwill for 71., and not to open a shop of the same description under a forfeiture of 201., it was held not to require a stamp; for the forfeiture is not of the value of the matter. Pemberton v. Vaughan, 10 Q. B. 87. So, an agreement to pay interest at 1s. per £1 per month, if a bill for 1007., to be discounted, should not be paid at maturity. Semple v. Steinau, 8 Exch. 622; 22 L. J., Ex. 224. The general regulations of a free school under which the master is appointed, signed by him and the trustees, may be proved against him, though unstamped. Browne v. Dawson, 12 Ad. & E. 624. A memorandum by a carrier of the receipt of goods worth 201. might be given in evidence, to show the terms upon which they were received, without a stamp; the carriage being of less amount. Latham v. Rutley, Ry. & M. 13. So in the case of a wharfinger. Chadwick v. Sills, Id. 15; but in this latter case a 3d. stamp would now generally be required, vide Warrant for Goods, post, p. 239. A memorandum relating to the warehousing of goods worth more than 20l. was admissible if the warehouse rent were less. Baldwin v. Alsager, 13 M. & W. 365. An agreement to indemnify a bailiff who distrained for 11. 48. rent, was held to require no stamp ; for the value is uncertain. Cox v. Bailey, 6 M. &. Gr. 193. So, an agreement to do work of uncertain quantity at 11. 14s. per rod. Liddiard v. Gale, 4 Exch. 816. But an agreement to indemnify A. from all costs, charges, damages, or other expenses, which he might incur as bail for B., required an agreement stamp, the arrest of B. being for more than 201., though the costs, &c., incurred did not amount to that sum. Williams v. Jarrett, 5 B. & Ad. 32. Where the agreement relates to granting a lease, the rent is the matter on which the value is to be calculated. Mayfield v. Robinson, 7 Q. B. 486; Burton v. Reevell, 16 M. & W. 307. But if the period of tenancy be fixed, the rent multiplied by the time is the test of value. Doe d. Marlow v. Wiggins, 4 Q. B. 366, 372, 377. As, however (by sect. 96, post, p. 241), agreements for leases for terms not exceeding 35 years now require lease stamps, these decisions will not frequently be applicable. See further, post, pp. 241, 242. Second Exemption.] Agreement or memorandum for the hire of any labourer, artificer, manufacturer, or menial servant." An assignment of an apprentice is not within this exemption. R. v. S. Paul's, Bedford, 6 T. R. 452. Firemen and stokers on board foreign steamers are within it. Wilson v. Zulueta, 14 Q. B. 405; Cornforth v. Danube & Black Sea Ry. Co., 2 F. & F. 197. So, a person hired to take charge of glebe, dairy, &c., at a salary and share of clear profit. R. v. Wortley, 2 Den. C. C. 333; 21 L. J., M. C. 44. By the general exemption (3), at the end of the schedule, "bonds, contracts, and agreements entered into in the United Kingdom for or relating to the service in any of Her Majesty's colonies or possessions abroad of any person as an artificer, clerk, domestic servant, handicraftsman, mechanic, gardener, servant in husbandry, or labourer," are exempt from all duty. Third Exemption.] "Agreement, letter, or memorandum made for or relating to the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise.” Cases within the third Exemption.] An undertaking to guarantee the payment of goods to be furnished to third persons. Warrington v. Furbor, 8 East, 242; accord. Sadler v. Johnson, 16 M. & W. 775; Chatfield v. Cox, 18 Q. B. 321; 21 L. J., Q. B. 279. An agreement by A. to take half of certain goods bought by B. on their joint account, and to furnish B. with half the amount in time for payment. Venning v. Leckie, 13 East, 7. An agreement to cancel a former agreement relative to the sale of goods, and for the future sale of goods upon different terms. Whitworth v. Crockett, 2 Stark. 431. An agreement for the sale of rape oil, not yet expressed from the seed. Wilks v. Atkinson, 6 Taunt. 11. An agreement to make a chattel and deliver it within a certain time; Pinner v. Arnold, 2 C. M. & R. 613; Lee v. Griffin, 1 B. & S. 272; 30 L. J., Q. B. 252; though it was formerly held that a contract to make goods for sale was not within the exemption. Burton v. Bedall, 3 East, 303. An agreement for the sale of chimney-pieces, the vendor "to finish them in a tradesmanlike manner." Hughes v. Breeds, 2 C. & P. 159. A receipt for the price of a horse containing a warranty of soundness. Skrine v. Elmore, 2 Camp. 407. An agreement for a crop growing in a close, and conferring no interest in the land. Parker v. Staniland, 11 East, 362; Warwick v. Bruce, 2 M. & S. 295; Evans v. Roberts, 5 B. & C. 829; Watts v. Friend, 10 B. & C. 446; Jones v. Flint, 10 Ad. & E. 753. An agreement for the purchase of timber, though the trees are growing. Smith v. Surman, 9 B. & C. 561. An agreement to supply a house with water. W. Middlesex Waterworks v. Suwerkropp, M. & M. 409. Some of the above cases were decided on the Stat. of Frauds, ss. 4 and 17 but they are authorities on the Stamp Act also. A memorandum by the defendant of an advance made to him by the plaintiff, an auctioneer, on receipt of books for sale by the plaintiff by auction, requires no stamp. Southgate v. Bohn, 16 M. & W. 34. ; Cases not within the third Exemption.] An agreement by a principal to provide for certain bills drawn upon his factor, if certain goods, then either in the factor's possession or about to be placed there, should remain unsold at the time of the bills falling due; for the exemption is confined to instruments whereof the sale of goods is the primary object. Smith v. Cator, 2 B. & A. 778. An agreement for the sale of goods and goodwill. South v. Finch, 3 N. C. 506. A contract for the erection of fixtures; semb. per Parke, B., Pinner v. Arnold, 2 C. M. & R. 613; or the sale of railway shares, Knight v. Barber, 16 M. & W. 66. So, an agreement for the sale of growing crops, conferring an interest in the land; Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 East, 602; Waddington v. Bristow, 2 B. & P. 453; Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt. 38; or a sale of growing underwood, to be cut by the purchaser; Scorell v. Boxall, 1 Y. & J. 396; or an agreement to print a book, and supply the paper; Appraisement.-Award. 223 Clay v. Fourth Exemption.] Agreement or memorandum made between the master and mariners of any ship or vessel for wages on any voyage coastwise from port to port in the United Kingdom." See also the exemptions given by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 9, and which are retained by the Stamp Act, 1870, s. 3 (ante, p. 208). Appraisement. Appraisement or valuation of any property, or of any interest therein, or of the annual value thereof, or of any dilapidations, or of any repairs wanted, or of the materials and labour used or to be used in any building, or of any artificer's work whatsoever," must be stamped as follows: where the amount of appraisement does not exceed 51.,-3d. ; where, it exceeds 51. and does not exceed 101.,-6d.; 10l. and not 201.,-1s. ; 20l. and not 30l.,-1s. 6d. ; 30l. and not 401.,-28.; 40l. and not 50l.,-2s. 6d. ; 50l. and not 100l.,—58.; 100l. and not 2007.,-10s.; 2001. and not 500l.,-158.; exceeds 500l.,-—11. Exemptions.-Appraisement or valuation (1) made for the information of one party only, and not being in any manner obligatory as between parties, either by agreement or operation of law; (2) made under order of Admiralty Court; (3) made for ascertaining legacy or succession duty.. Where nothing is referred to but the mere value of goods and the repairs of a farm, an appraisement stamp is proper, and not an award stamp. Leeds v. Burrows, 12 East, 1. Award. An Award must be stamped as follows: where the amount or value of the matter in dispute does not exceed 5l.,-3d.; where it exceeds 51. and does not exceed 107.,-6d.; 10l. and not 201.,-18.; 20l. and not 30l.,-1s. 6d; 30l. and not 401.,-2s. ; 40l. and not 50l.,-2s. 6d.; 50l. and not 100l.,-5s. ; 100l. and not 2007.,-10s.; 2001. and not 500l.,-15s. ; 500l. and not 750l., -ll.; 570l. and not 1,000l.,-1l. 5s.; and where it shall exceed 1,000l., and in any other case not above provided for,-17. 15s. It seems that an award ordering something to be done other than or as well as the payment of money, must bear the duty of 17. 158. The appointment of an umpire, made in writing by two arbitrators requires no stamp. Routledge v. Thornton, 4 Taunt. 704. An agreement stamp is not necessary to an arbitration bond which, besides the usual covenants, contains an agreement as to the payment of costs. Re Wansborough, 2 Chitty, 40. A paper drawn up by a person appointed by two parties to ascertain the amount of an account requires an award stamp. Jebb v. M'Keirnan, M. & M. 340. But not if the account is not intended to bind them. Goodyear v. Simpson, 15 M. & W. 16. The opinion of counsel, by which parties agree to abide, does not require an award stamp. Semb. Boyd v. Emmerson, 2 Ad. & E. 184. Nor does a certificate by a referee, agreed on at the trial, as to the amount at which a verdict, taken at the trial, is to stand. Salter v. Yeates, 5 Dowl. 291; and see Tomes v. Hawkes, 10 Ad. & E. 32. An award of land by commissioners of inclosure only requires an award stamp and not an ad valorem stamp, as on a sale. Doe d. Ld. Suffield v. Preston, 7 B. & C. 392. By the C. L. P. Act, 1854, s. 30, no document made or required under the provisions of that Act shall be liable to any stamp duty. Sects. 3-17 relate to arbitration. Bank Note, Bill of Exchange, Cheque, & Promissory Note. Bank Note.-For money not exceeding 11.,-5d.; exceeding 11. and not 21.,-10d. ; 21. and not 5l.,-1s. 3d.; 5l. and not 10l.,-1s. 9d.; 10l. and not 201.,-28.; 20l. and not 301.,-3s.; 30l. and not 50l.,-5s.; 50l. and not 100l.,-8s. 6d. Banker.-Sect. 45. "The term 'banker' means and includes any corporation, society, partnership, and persons, and every individual person carrying on the business of banking in the United Kingdom." Bank Note." The term 'bank note' means and includes-(1.) Any bill of exchange or promissory note issued by any banker, other than the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, for the payment of money not exceeding 100l. to the bearer on demand. (2.) Any bill of exchange or promissory note so issued which entitles or is intended to entitle the bearer or holder thereof, without indorsement, or without any further or other indorsement than may be thereon at the time of issuing thereof, to the payment of money not exceeding 1007. on demand, whether the same be so expressed or not, and in whatever form, and by whomsoever such bill or note is drawn or made." Sect. 46. "A bank note issued duly stamped, or issued unstamped by a banker duly licensed or otherwise authorised to issue unstamped bank notes, may be from time to time re-issued without being liable to any stamp duty by reason of such re-issuing." The provisions relating to notes issued by private banks will be found in 7 & 8 Vict. c. 32; 8 & 9 Vict. cc. 37, 38; and 17 & 18 Vict. c. 83, ss. 11, 12. Their issue is now restricted by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 32, ss. 10, 28. "Bill of Exchange. -Payable on demand,-ld." This includes cheques and orders for the payment of money, see sect. 48, post, p. 225, and also by 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61, s. 10 (replacing, see sects. 96, 97 (3)(a),34 & 35 Vict. c. 74, s. 2, except so far as relates to stamp duty), bills payable at sight or on presentation. A draft payable generally is payable on demand. Whitlock v. Underwood, 2 B. & C. 157. A draft payable on demand, whether to bearer or order, is not rendered invalid by being post dated; for the act deals with such an instrument only as it appears on its face when tendered in evidence, without reference to any collateral agreement or consideration by which its apparent operation may be affected; Bull v. O'Sullivan, L. R., 6 Q. B. 209; Gatty v. Fry, 2 Ex. D. 265; see also Currie v. Misa, 1 Ap. Ca. 554, D. P. The stats. 31 Geo. 3, c. 25, s. 4, and 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, s. 13, and schedule, which required that a cheque should bear date on or before the day on which the same should be issued (and on which Field v. Woods, 7 Ad. & E. 114, and the previous cases were decided) have been repealed, and the Stamp Act, 1870, contains no similar enactment. "Bill of Exchange of any other kind whatsoever (except a Bank Note, as to which vide supra), and Promissory Note of any kind whatsoever (except |