Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/715

 DOWELL V. APPLEGATB. ���701 ���and that is, that the consideration might correspond with that in the deed from J. A. to his son, and thereby give strength to the claim that the former was a bona Jide transaction based upon an adequate consideration. �It is not at all probable that while the actual consideration of the deed in question was $2,000, that it would be expressed in the deed at $500, merely to save the expense of stamps to the value of $1.50, and at the same time ineur thereby a penalty of many times that sum ; ■while it is not improbable that it may for some reason have been done with a view of preserving an apparent uniformity in the considera- tions of the two conveyances. The two motives could hardly co- exist, and there is such a want of probability as to the former, that, as between them, the latter must be accepted as the true one. But in any event the Drains are innocent purohasers, and not a party to or participant in either alleged fraud or fraudulent intention;, and ■while they may be affected by the invalidity of the deed to them on account of their grantor's fraudulent omission to sufficiently stamp the sa.me, I do not think that justice or equity requires the court to permit the plaintiff to amend his bill, after a demurrer thereto has been allowed, sp as to enable him to enforce a claim to the property founded upon such invalidity ; particularly as he had ample oppor- tunity to bring the matter before the court by proper allegations in the amended bill to •which the demurrer vras taken. Besides this, there is much force in the suggestion that the plaintiff ought not to be allowed to proceed against the property conveyed to the Drains, imtil it appears that the property of J. A., either in his own hands or that of his children, is not sufficient to satisfy his claim. �The motion to amend is denied, and the bill as to the defendants Charles and John G. Drain is dismissed, vrith costa. ��� �