Hall v. Jordan

On a bill to enforce a vendor’s lien, where the vendee set up that the deed which the complainant had given him was insufficiently stamped (which fact if true would under an act of Congress prevent its being used in evidence), the Supreme Court of a State, disregarding the objection, enforced the lien. The vendee brought the case hero as within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. Held, that however frivolous the objection of the vendee, it raised a question under the section.

On motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction; the case being this: Jordan, on the 1st November, 1866, sold a tract of laud to Hall and Conley; they paying him $6500 in gold and giving him their obligation to pay him on the 25th December, 1867, “ an amount in the legal currency of the United States sufficient to purchase $6890 of the present gold coin of the United States.” Jordan made them a deed accordingly, in which, however, the consideration was stated to be “ thirteen thousand dollars” to the grantor then in hand paid, and the receipt of which the deed acknowledged. An act of Congress of June 30th, 1864,* enacts that on deeds of land there shall be a stamp of $1 for each $1000 of consideration-money, and fifty cents for every fraction of the sum last named, and that no deed not properly stamped shall be received in evidence. It makes provision for the rectification of unintentional error on the subject. The stamp on this deed was one of $13. The amount sufficient to purchase $6890 of the then gold coin of the United States not being paid to Jordan on the 25th of December, 1867 (gold coin being then about 32 per cent, above currency), he filed a bill in one of the State courts of Tennessee setting forth the fact of his sale, and appending a copy of the deed with the $13 stamp, alleging that about $8000 in currency value was still due and unpaid, praying that his lien as vendor against the land be enforced, an aecount be taken, and the land sold. The defendant set up, among other defences, that Jordan was seeking to recover more than the amount of $13,000 and interest thereon, the original purchase-money, and more than the amount covered by the revenue stamps attached to the deed; and that if he was allowed to do so, the deed executed would be absolutely null and void, and convey no title to them, by reason of its being insufficiently stamped. And they prayed that if he was allowed to collect more than $13,000 in all, he should be compelled to execute a deed, sufficiently stamped to be valid and binding. The court ordered the lien to be enforced, and that the vendor recover $8741 (an amount reported due by a master), and that sale should be in default of payment. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed this decree, and Hall and Conley appealed to this court under the assumption that they had set up a right under an act of Congress, and that it had been- decided against; a state of things when a power of review by this court is given by the third paragraph of the Judiciary Act, quoted supra, p. 3.