Promissory note payable after a fixed period was treated as insufficiently stamped and inadmissible in evidence.

A promissory note is payable on demand only where it creates immediate liability; if the instrument fixes a future time for payment, the reference to demand does not alter that character. The document was therefore treated as a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand, attracting the corresponding stamp duty, and insufficient stamping rendered it inadmissible in evidence. The instrument also could not be treated as a bond because a promissory note payable to order falls outside the statutory definition of bond, and attestation did not change its legal character.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the instrument was a promissory note payable on demand or payable otherwise than on demand, and consequently what stamp duty was chargeable and whether the document was inadmissible in evidence; (ii) Whether the instrument could be treated as a bond under the Stamp Act.

Issue (i): Whether the instrument was a promissory note payable on demand or payable otherwise than on demand, and consequently what stamp duty was chargeable and whether the document was inadmissible in evidence.

Analysis: A promissory note must contain an unconditional undertaking to pay. The expression "on demand" in a promissory note has a technical meaning of immediate liability, but where the document fixes a future time for payment and also speaks of payment on demand, the demand does not destroy the future date stipulated for payment. The Court held that the instrument in question was payable after a fixed period and therefore was not payable on demand. It consequently attracted duty applicable to a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand, and as the stamp affixed was deficient, the document was insufficiently stamped and inadmissible in evidence.

Conclusion: The document was a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand, was insufficiently stamped, and was inadmissible in evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether the instrument could be treated as a bond under the Stamp Act.

Analysis: A bond under Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act includes certain instruments not payable to order or bearer. A promissory note expressly payable to order does not fall within that definition. The fact that the instrument was attested did not alter its character, because the statutory definition of bond could not extend to a promissory note payable to order.

Conclusion: The instrument was not a bond.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, and the challenged document was held inadmissible for want of proper stamp duty.

Ratio Decidendi: A promissory note fixing a future date for payment is payable otherwise than on demand, and if it is not duly stamped it is inadmissible in evidence; a note expressly payable to order cannot be treated as a bond merely because it is attested.

---