Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-03-15
GIVES NO VALIDITY.
Subsequent Stamping Of Mortgage
Assignments Not Good.

lam OPINION BY 4 MARYLAND COURT
IL Embodied in the Bulletin OF Treas.
ury Decisions and as a Matter OF
Course Governs in Assign.
men Of Mortgages.
The effect of Il failure, to SafiSs the
proper amount of war revenue stamps
to an assignment of a mortgage, rem
ders the INSTRUMENT invalid and, sub
sequent stamping has no retroactive
effect in impafting validity. This as
the sum and substance of "a startling
decision made tbygan associate Judge
of a Maryland circuit court and lis
printed in the bulletin of the Treasury
department: All persons who buy
notes secured by mortgages would do
we'll to inquire closely into the fact
as to whether or not the assignment.
of the same bears the necessary
amount Of stamps required by law.
Statement OF the Case.
On the 9th day of March, 1880, one
HenrysHartle TeNecuted a mortgage
upon certain landsto BENJAMIN South
to secure the payment of the sun Of
$500. This mortgage contained a
power of sale to the mortgagee in de-
fault of payment, On the 18th day of
September, 1889, the administrators of
the mortgagee assigned the mortgage
to George w. Smith, Jr., and Joseph
Ground. who subsequently on the 14th
day IF November, 1898. assigned it to
Lewis j.. Ground. On the 18th day of
November. 1899. Geo. w. Smith, .Jr.,
J%osephus Ground, and Lewis j. Ground
fall joined in an assignment and trans
fer of the mortgage to Henry +. Win
CERT. Default having been made in
1.-The payment of the money, Mr.. Win
CERT, in the execution of the power of
sale contained in the mortgage, offer
ed the property at public sale on the
18th day of December. 1890, and sold
it to Mrs. Laura (. Zeigler for a sum
amounting to $10,556. The purchaser
tnow comes into court and excerpts to
the ratification. of, the sale upon the
ground that att the time. the sale was
made there was not a United States
internal revenue stamp ON the assign
ment of November IA, 1899, from
Smith and Ground to Wingert.
Tle Law.
The court cites sections IA and Is
| 1898, which follow:
l. SS1Nhu{ Io,o, fRn,, $50. 80
per or document required by law TO
Ibe stamped, which has been signed or
issued without being duly stamped, or
with deficient stamp, nor any copy
thereof, shall be recorded or admitted,
or used as; evidence in any. court until
a legal stamp or stamps. denotings the
amouat of tax, shall.l,ave been affixed
thereto, as prescribedsby law.
/ .sThat 1T shall not be. lawful. to re-
cord of register any instrument, paper
or document required by law to be
stamped unless a stamp or stamps of
the proper mount shall have been af-
fixed and cancelled in the manner pre-
scribed by law; and the record, regis
try, or transfer of any such instru-
ment upon which the proper stamp OF
stamps aforesaid shall not have been
affixed and cancelled as aforesaid shall
not be used as etidence.'
! The opinion.
subsequently on January 12, 1900,
the proper amount of United States
internal revenue stamps was affixed
by the collector of internal revenue
under the provisions OF section thir-
teen.x
The question presented is, what is
the qualifying effect of the inadmis.
sibility of the transfer of assignment
in evidence upon the sale of December
~, 1890. The absence of any adjudi-
cations as to the effect of the war
revenue act of June 49, 1898, makes
shis a new question for determination.
The law does not necessarily consist
of precedents or adjudged cases, but Oh
the principles which run thru the
cases, which, when properly applied
produce n legal consequence to the
facts Of the controversy.
mo retroactive intention is. either
depressed or can be implied from the
language of the act of congress OF
June 10, 1898. In fact such a provi.
sion would tend to a great extent to
destroy its effectiveness as a revenue
measure. The clear purpose of the
act of congress is TO take away from
transfers and assignments any proba,
tive character and to render them oil
no legal validity until they are subse-
qnently stamped in compliance With
the provision of the act. The subse.
quent stamping is to be taken as i'm.
parting legal validity only from that
point of time. To judicially legislate
into this provision u retroactive effect
would be to make the act of transfer
effective from the beginning withou,
regard to the restriction of congress
and invite a disregard of the stamI
duties by Withholding the stamp tas
until some future emergency should
arise for exhibiting the transfer.
mo question was made at the hear,
ing as TO the right of the purchaser
to intervene and seek a RECESSION of the
sale, nor do l understand that hel
right to do so is denied. a court d
equity will not compel a purchaser IL
take a title which is not free from
reasonable doubt and might in reason
able probability expose him to the haz
zard of litigation.
For the reasons above stated, TIL,