Case ID: ind_29/html/0026-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ray, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lambert v. Whitelock.
    Deed. — Revenue Stamps. — To a suit for the purchase money of land, the defendant answered that the true consideration for the land was- much more than that named in the deed, and that the grantor had caused the consideration to bo stated in the deed at a less sum than the true amount, for the purpose of defrauding the government, and to render defendant’s deed invalid.
    
      Held, that the answer was no bar to the action.
    APPEAL from the Fayette Circuit Court.
   Ray, J.

The act of congress requiring certain instruments to he stamped, of June 30,1864, section 158, and the ninth section of the act of July 13, 1866, amending the former act, declares that any paper executed in violation of the terms of tlie act “ shall be invalid and of no effect: provided, that the title of a purchaser of land, by. deed duly stamped, shall not be defeated or affected by the want of a proper stamp on any deed conveying said land by any person from, through, or under whom his grantor claims or holds title.”

J. C. McIntosh, for appellant.

B. F. Claypool, for appellee.

The answer, it will be observed, is in bar of the action; but it appears that although the statute declares, in general terms, all instruments executed in fraud of the law “invalid and of no effect,” yet, in regard to conveyances so executed, validity is given to them for certain purposes. ■ Thus the appellant can, by the terms of the law, sell and convey by proper deed, making a full and perfect title to the land. Without, therefore, questioning the power of congress to pass the law, we sustain the action of the court in holding the answer no bar to the action.

.A question in regard to the .proper taxation of costs is attempted to be raised in this court, but as no motion was made in the court below, and no such point is made by the abstract, we do not consider it. .

The judgment is affirmed, with one per cent, damages and costs.