Miller v. Morrow

43 Tenn. 587
Tennessee Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1867·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ShackelfoRd, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

W. B. Morrow, on the 14th of September, 1865, by deed, conveyed to J. J. Polk, as Trustee, certain lands, stock, etc., without an estimated value, to secure the payment of his debts, amounting to $10,000, due by note, etc., which deed was acknowledged and registered, according to the laws of this State, in the proper office, in the County of Hardeman, the residence of the grantor. At the time of the execution, and before its registration. United States revenue stamps, in value $7.50, were placed upon it and properly cancelled. On the 21st of February, 1866, the complainants filed their bill in the Chancery Court of Hardeman, against the maker, trustee, and beneficiaries in the deed, in which they aver the deed was fraudulent in law and in fact, and void for want of the proper amount of revenue stamps required by the Acts of Congress. Attachments were [589] prayed for and issued, and the property embraced in the deed attached. The answers of the defendants were filed, except the maker; he being a non-resident, publication was made, and a pro confesso taken against him. The original deed was filed with the answer of the Trustee, Polk.

At the September Term, 1866, of the Court, leave was granted to defendant, Polk, to withdraw the original deed from the file, to have the requisite amount of revenue stamps placed upon it. On the 13th of March, 1867, the revenue collector of the district, placed on the deed, revenue stamps to the value of $5, additional, and entered on the deed, “Stamped in accordance with sec. 158 of the Act of Congress, July 13, 1866, and penalty remitted. Rolfe Sanders, Collector.”

On the 18th of March, 1867, the deed thus stamped was again registered. The cause was heard at the March Term, 1867; and the Court being of opinion the complainants were not entitled to relief, dismissed the hill; from which they appealed to this Court.

The questions presented for our consideration in this case, are:

1st, Was the deed void as to creditors, not having the requisite amount of revenue stamps upon it, required by the Act of Congress of the 30th of June, 1864?

2d, In consequence of not being so duly stamped, was the registration unlawful and void ?

3d, Did the subsequent act of placing the requisite amount of revenue stamps on the deed, and the registration thereof, relate back so as to defeat the lien acquired by the levying of the attachment ?

[590] To determine these questions, it is necessary to examine the several Acts of Congress, requiring revenue stamps to be placed on such instruments.

The first Act was passed July 1, 1862, and provides, all instruments mentioned in Schedule B, which was annexed and made a part of the Act, should have the requisite amount of revenue stamps, specified in the schedule affixed to them.

By the provisions of Schedule B, mortgage of lands, estate, property, real or personal, hereditable or movable, whatsoever, when the same shall be made a security for the payment of a definite and certain sum of money, lent at the time, or previously due and owing, or for bond to be paid, being payable; also any conveyance of land or property, whatsoever, in trust to be sold or otherwise converted into money, which shall be intended as a security, and shall be redeemable before the sale, either by express stipulation or otherwise, or any bond given on the security for the payment of any definite or certain sum of money exceeding $100, and not exceeding $500, fifty cents, and so in proportion to the amount; when the amount secured is $5,000, and not exceeding $10,000, ten dollars.

By the 95th section of said Act, it was provided, if any person shall make, sign, or issue, or cause to be made, signed, or issued, any instrument, document or paper of any kind or description whatsoever, without the same being duly stamped, denoting the duty imposed thereon, or without having an adhesive stamp to denote said duty, such person or persons shall incur the penalty of $50, and such instrument shall [591] be deemed invalid and of no effect: Vol. 12 U. S. Statutes at Large, 475.

The next Act upon the subject was passed and approved March 3, 1863. Mo material chauge was made in stamp duties on instruments in Schedule B, of the Act of July 1, 1862. The nest Act on this subject was approved June 30, 1864.' Section 151 of this Act, makes certain changes in stamp duties on instruments mentioned in Schedule B, of the Act of July, 1862: U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. 13, pp. 291, 292.

Section 132 of the Act, is as follows : “That it shall not be lawful to record any instrument, document, or paper required by law to be stamped, unless a stamp or stamps of the proper amount, shall have been affixed; and the record of any such instrument upon which the proper stamp or stamps aforesaid, shall not have been affixed, shall be utterly void, and shall not be used in evidence.”

Section 158 of said Act, provides, when any instument is made or issued, and not duly stamped, with the intent to evade the provisions of the Act, the person so using shall forfeit and pay the sum of $200, and the instrument shall be declared to be void and of no effect.

Section 163 of this Act, has alone reference to deeds, documents, or papers not duly stamped, issued prior to the passage of the Act, and provides the mode in which they may be stamped and registered, or used in evidence, modifying section 95th of the Act of July 1st, 1862.

[592] Next in order, was the Act of March 3d, 1865, which, according to its title, was an Act amendatory of the Act of June 30th, 1864, and enacts that sec. 158 of that Act be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting in lieu thereof, a provision, that the penalty for signing or issuing a document or paper, without a proper stamp, with the intent to evade the provisions of the Act, shall be fifty dollars. It provides, that hereafter, in all cases, when the parties has not affixed to any instrument the stamp duty, as required by section 151, of the Act of June, 1864, in the Schedule, marked B, thereunto annexed, the stamps thereby required to be annexed, at the time of making or issuing said instrument, and he or they, or any party having an interest therein, and shall be subsequently desirous of affixing such stamps, he or they shall appear before the Collector of the Revenue of the proper district, who shall, upon the payment of the proper stamp required by law, and a penalty of fifty dollars, when the whole amount of the duty denoted shall exceed fifty dollars; on payment, also, of the rate of interest of six per cent, on said duty, from the day said stamp ought to have ■ been affixed, and affix the proper stamp to said instrument, and note on the margin of the instrument the date of doing so, and the fact that said penalty has been paid or remitted, as he is authorized to do, such instrument shall be held to be valid to.all intents and purposes, as if stamped when made or issued: U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. 13, 481.

[593] The last Act on this subject was passed July 13th, 1866, and is entitled “An Act to reduce internal taxation, and to amend an Act entitled cAn Act to provide internal revenue.’ ”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Miller v. Morrow, 43 Tenn. 587 (Tenn. 1867).

43 Tenn. 587 (Miller v. Morrow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related