Crawford v. New South Farm & Home Co.

• Decision Date: 07 October 1915
• Citation: 231 F. 999
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. NEW SOUTH FARM & HOME CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

231 F. 999

CRAWFORD v. NEW SOUTH FARM & HOME CO.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

October 7, 1915

Rushmore Bisbee & Stern, of New York City, and Bisbee & Bedell, of Jacksonville, Fla., for complainant.

H. L Anderson, of Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant.

CALL District Judge.

This matter comes before me upon the report of the special master heretofore appointed herein, asking for instructions as to whether: (1) Documentary revenue stamps should be attached to the master's deed made pursuant to decree of this court and (2) if such stamps should be attached, then what amount? Schedule A of the Revenue Act of 1914 (Act Oct. 22, 1914, c. 331, Sec. 22, 38 Stat. 762) contains the following:

'Conveyance. Deed, instrument, or writing, whereby any lands, tenements, or other realty sold shall be granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers, * * * when the consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed, exclusive of the value of any lien or incumbrance thereon, exceeds $100.00 and does not exceed $500.00, 50 cents; and for each additional $500.00 or fractional part thereof in excess of $500.00, 50 cents,' etc.

This language is amply broad enough to cover master's deeds, or in fact any deed to land made pursuant to an order of court by an officer duly authorized, unless there is some reason inherent in the office of a special master in chancery or other court officer empowered to make the sale and sign the conveyance, which prevents the operation of the act.

I have been referred to the case of Stirneman v. Smith, 100 F. 602, 40 C.C.A. 581, as shedding some light on this subject. In that case (the certificate of a notary public as to depositions) the court does use language comparing a notary public performing such duties to a 'referee,' 'examiner,' or 'master in chancery,' 'whose functions are clearly judicial.'

I have also been referred to Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Council Bluffs Gas & Electric Light Co. (C.C.) 90 F. 806, where the very point now before me was adjudicated.

The language of the act of 1914, in so far as the question now being considered, is identical with the act before the court in the last-mentioned case. And the court there held that such deed required the proper stamps to be affixed.

As I read the various cases deciding questions relating to the taxing acts passed by the Congress, the test seems to...