Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/714

 700 FEDERAL EBPOBTER. �But in the case of any "instrument or document" other than nego- tiable paper, the intention or purpose of. the party to or for whom it is made or delivered, or the use he puts it to or makes of it, is simply immaterial. Nor is it material in this suit whether the Drains caused this deed to be made within the meaning of the statute or not, and could only become so in an action against them for the penalty im- posed by the aot. If their grantor omitted to stamp it, as requii-ed by law, with the intent to defraud the revenue, it is void, no matter who, or whether any one, caused them to do so. Nor does it appear that the Drains caused this deed to be made, otherwise than by be- coming the actual purchasers of the property described therein ; and that this did not bring them within the purview or penalty of the statute is too plain for argument. �The proposed amendment is immaterial, and that is a sufficient reason why the motion should be denied. But I do not think this amendment ought to be allowed, even if it contained the allegation that the deed to the Drains is void because the grantor therein made and delivered the same to them without its being duly stamped, and with the intent to defraud the United States. �Amendments to a bill, af ter a demurrer thereto bas been Bustained, are not allowed as a matter of right, but rest in the discretion of the court, and are only allowed when they are necessary to promote or attain the ends of justice in the case. Hunt v. Bousmaniere, 2 Mason, 365. �The case sought to be made against the defendants by the amend- ment is this : J. A., being a co-surety with the plaintiflf on an officiai bond, is alleged to have conveyed the premises to his son without or upon a grossly inadequate consideration, with intent to defraud the state and theplaintiff, who has sincebeen compelled topay the bond. But it is admitted that the Drains purchased from the son for a suffi- cient consideration, and without notice of such fraudulent intent, and are therefore not affected by it. Coneeding this, however, it is claimed that the deed to the Drains is void because their grantor only put a stamp of the value of 50 cents on it when he should have put two dollars, with intent to defraud the revenue of the difference; and therefore the property, for the purpose of this suit, must be consid- ered as still held by the son under the fraudulent deed from J. A„ and subject to be applied upon the latter's debt to the plaintiff. �But the plaintiff also imputes another, and, in my judgment, a more probable, motive for the omission to stamp the deed sufficiently, ��� �