Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-07-12
IT IS RETROACTIVE.
Subsequent Stamping of In
struments Makes Valid.
NEW DECISION ON THE MATTER.

Must Be Shown.-Duty of Record
ing officer.-Penalties Collect.
ed May not Be Returned.
Inc action of a revenue collector
IN stamping an unsta,nped instru-
ment after it was recorded, where
1t was shown that no intent existed
to defraud the government cures the
defect and operates retroactively, or
IN other words makes i, valid, accord
ing to the decision of the Maryland
| court of appeals, which is directly op-
posite to that rendered ny the United
States circuit court judge last March.
Along with the decision as printed in
the bulletin issued by Commissioner
| Wilson, is something touching the duty
of recording officers in noting the fact
upon the record that the proper rev.
enue stamp was placed upon the in
strument and also that penalties COL
lected by authority for failure to place
the stamp on an instrument cannot be
refunded by the commissioner.
Subsequent Stamping Of Instruments.
The facts in the case where the
court decided that subsequent stamp
ing of an assignment of a mortgage
by a collector rendered the instrument
valid, where no intent to defraud the
| government was shown, are as fol.
lows:
/ On November IA, 1899, mortgage
was assigned. to the appellant, Henry
/ ort yy1,N OBJ no
erty under a power of sale contained
in the mortgage, and on December L.,
1899, sold it to Laura K. Zeigler, tha
/ appellee.
The sale was duly reported to the
circuit court for Washington county
and exceptions were filed by the pur.
chaser on the ground that at the
time of the sale the assignment OF
the mortgage was not stamped as re
required by the United States revenue
4 laws. On January ~, 1900, the col
lector of internal revenue for the dis
trict of Maryland certified that salts
factory, evidence having been furnish
ed him that the failure 20 affix and
cancel stamps to denote the tax due
at the time of the assignment was
owing to inadvertence and was MOI
4 willful stamps of the proper value
had been affixed and Cancelled by
; him, which certificate was noted on
the record by the clerk. The court
/ below set the sale aside, and from
that action this appeal was taken.
The Opinion.
In it's finding the court says: SEC
, ton Is of the act of congress approx
, ed June 10, 1898, entitled can act t.
provide ways and means to meet we,
expenditures and for other purposes,
provides that any person or persons
who shall register, issue, sell or trans
fer, or who shall cause to be issued
registered, sold or transferred, an,
instrument, document or paper of an
kind or description whatsoever mer
toned in schedule A of this act, with
. out the same being duly stamped, o.
having thereupon an adhesive staml
for denoting the tax chatgeable there
on and cancelled in the manner re
quired by law, with intent to evade tn,
I provisions of this act shall be deem
ed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upol
, conviction thereof shall be punishe,
) by fine not exceeding Fifty dollars
, or by Imprisonment not exceeding si
I months, or both, in the discretion O
! the court; aud such instrument, doc
I Dment, or paper, not being stampe
: according to law, shall be deemed il
y valid and of no effect, etc. This
followed by some importan
provision for the correction O
failure to stamp, which Il wi
be referred to later on in this opinion
z and will not No yuho fot
Schedule A includes assignment
? of mortgages, and as we have seer
this assignment was duly stamped b
!, the collector within twelve month
: and his certificate was recorded b
the clerk. None of the facts are dis
. puted, and the only question, there
= fore, to be determined is whether tn
subsequent action of the collector j
stamping the assignment so correcte
the effect of the omission to stamp
|, when made as to entitle the holdc
y of the mortgage to have the sale RAT
S fed. No other objection to the valit
d ity of the sale is suggested, and
d is not shown, or even claimed, thu
n the fact that the assignment wa
Il not originlly stamped in any way a
}, fected the price which the propert
y brought, indeed that could not we
). have been attempted, as no one br
the purchaser has objected to tn
sale. Nor is it suggested that til
rights of any person have in any wa
interviewed and the real purpose {
our inquiry must be whetl
er the appellee would, b
the ratification of this sal
CHI :.
had if the assignment had been dull
stamped when made
In order to ascertain the scope
the act and the effect of the failure t
stamp an instrument INCLUDED in i