Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/712

698 FBDEBAL BSPOBXEB. ���DowBLL ». Applbgatb and others. �(Circuit Court, D. Oregon. September 9, 1881.) �1. Debd, wheit Void undeb THE Internal Rbvenije Act. �A deed alleged te have been made with the intent tu evade the internai rev- enue act or to defraud the United States is not, therefore, invalid under section 158 (13 St. 294 ; 14 St. 152) thereof, and to malie it so it must also appear that the deed was made without being duly stamped, and with the intent thereby to evade the revenue act. a Ghantee ' ES Deed. �Said section. 168. only avoids a deed on nocnimt of the intent, of the grantor therein, and it is immaterial with what intent the grantee rcceives it, or to what use he puts it. 8. Amendaient of Bill. �After a demurrer to a bill is allotved, the right ^o nmori'^' rp«tB in the discretion of the court, and leave to amend will not be granieu unles&it is necessary to promote or attain the ends of justice in the case. 4. Case m Judoment. �A demurrer to a bill being sustained, the plaintiff asked leave to amend, to the effect that a deed to the dem'urrants was vuid under said sRCtion 158, for want oi being duly stamped, which tvas denied ; jt also appearing that sai4 parties were bonafide purchaaers for an adequate consideration. �Suit in Equity "in aid of Execution." �AMison G. Gihhi&ua B. F. Doweil, toi ■pl&iuiiii, �W. Cary Johnson, for defendants. �Deady, D. J. On Jtine 24, 1881, William H. H. Applegate conveyed to Charles and John 0. Drain 200 acres of land in Douglas county, by a deed in which the Sum of $500 was named as the consideration, having a stamp thereon of the value of 50 cents. Among other things, this suit is brought to set aside this conveyance as void, be- cause it was not stamped for $2,000, the alleged actual consideration thereof, so as to subject the property described therein to the satis- faction of a judgment for the plairitiff against the defendant Jesse Applegate, upon the ground that J. A, had conveyed the same to his son W. H. H. A. with intent to defraud the plaintiff. On July 8, 1881, a demurrer to the bill by the Drains was sustained on the ground that itdid not appear therefrom that the grantor had omitted to stamp the deed sufuciently with intent to defraud the revenue of the United States. The plaintiff now moves for leave to amend his bill in this respect, and the defendants object because the plaintiff, as to them, is seeking practically to enforce a forfeiture upon purely tecb- nical grounds against innocent purchasers, and theref ore ought not to be favored by a court of equity, and because it does not appear but ��� �