Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/898

 e86 FEIDUBAti BKPOBTBB. �No reason is alleged for the neglect to cancel the stamp; but the bill ascribes two contradictory motives for the omis- sion to duly stamp the conveyance made by said William A. to the Drains: (1) To make the consideration correspond with that in the conveyance from J. A. to himself, and to promote the purpose for which it was made — to defraud the creditera of said J. A. ; and (2) that an "inadequate " considera- tion was "expressed" in such conveyance, with intent to evade the revenue act. �The omission to stamp the deed from the first motive, does not render it void. An act done with a purpose to defraud or aid in defrauding the creditors of J. A. is not an act done, so far as appears, with intent to defraud the govemment. Nor does it naatter how "inadequate" the consideration for the conveyance is, so that the stamp used corresponds with it in amount. The statuts does not require a person to dis- pose of his property for an "adequate" consideration, with a view of enhancing the revenue of the government from that source, but very properly leaves that to be cared for by the selushness or the cupidity of the party interested. Neither is the allegation upon this point sufiScient, although it sug- gests that the proper one was in the mind of the pleader. The consideration expressed must not only have been inade- quate, but less than the amount actually paid. As section 158 of the stamp act, as amended by the act of March 3, 1865, (13 St. 481,) provides that the title of a purchaser by deed duly stamped shall not be affected by the*want of a stamp upon the deed of his grantor or predecessor in the inteiest, the allegation in the bill that the conveyance to said William A. was not duly stamped, is immaterial, so far as these defendants are coneerned. �With thia demurrer there was also argued and submitted the demurrer of the defendant Jonas Ellensburg to said bill, The case made in the bill against him is this: The defendant Charles Putnam, a grandson of the defendant J. A., and one of the persons to whom said J. A. eonveyed a portion of his real property as aforesaid, on January 19, 1879, sold 42 acres of the saine to said Jonas for the sum ��� �