Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/585

 DNITED STATES V. GRISWOLD. 571 �wards obtained by the plaintiff against the latter could not affect the premIBes, and therefore there is no case for the application of said section 268. See In re Estes, 3 Fed. Ebp. 134 ; S. C. 5 Fed. Eep. 60. �It is also claimed by the plaintiff that the conveyances in question are all insufiSciently stamped, and are therefore void. As the court has found otherwise, bec.ause the stamps placed upon them were sufficient for the actual "consideration" upon which they were made, it is not necessary to decide the questions made in this connection. �But it may be properly suggested that the provision of the inter- nai revenue act of June 30, 1864, (13 St. 293, § 158,) which declares that a conveyance not duly stamped "shall be deemed invalid and of no effect," applies only to cases where the proper stamp is omitted "with intent to evade the provisions" of the act, with intent to de- fraud the government of the stamp duty, and such fraudulent omis- sion must be alleged where it is sought to set aside or avoid a con- veyance on this aecount, or shown on the trial, if the question arises on the evidence. Campbell v. Wileox, 10 Wall. 421. �The pleadings in this case are silent on the subject. If the plain- tiff intended to attack the validity of these conveyances on this ground, he should have made the proper averments in his bill. Neither was the question made upon the production and proof of the record of the conveyances before the examiner. But the revenue act (Id. 292, § 152) also declares "that it shall not be lawful to record" a conveyance not properly stamped, and the record thereof "shall be utterly void," and "shall not be used in evidence," without reference to the intent or circumstanees veith or under which the stamp was omitted. The record of these conveyances, except the one to Jacobs, was introduced by the plaintiff, and the latter was introduced by the defendant, without objection on this ground, and it is too late to ob- ject on the hearing that the originals are not suffieiently stamped. �Besides, admitting that the record of the conveyance to J. M. A. is void because the original is not suffieiently stamped, it does not follow that the original is void also, for that depends upon the intent of the party maldng the deed; nor are we prepared to say that the lien of the plaintiff's judgment would prevail over this unrecorded conveyance, if otherwise valid, under the operation of section 268 aforesaid, imless it also appeared that such lien was taken or acquired in good faith, without knowledge or notice of such prier unrecorded conveyance. �Upon this point the plaintiff cites Eeed v. Heirs of Auntin, 9 Mo. 722; Frothingham v. Stacker, 11 Mo. 77; Davis v. Owenhy, 14 Mo. ��� �