Gibson v. Hibbard

• Decision Date: 26 April 1865
• Citation: 13 Mich. 214
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Amasa B. Gibson, administrator of Emma E. Howells, v. Daniel B. Hibbard

13 Mich. 214

Amasa B. Gibson, administrator of Emma E. Howells, v. Daniel B. Hibbard

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 26, 1865

Heard April 13, 1865 [Syllabus Material]

Error to Jackson circuit.

The facts will be found sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment of the circuit court affirmed, with costs.

Johnson & Higby, for plaintiff in error:

By the laws of congress the check in question required a three-cent stamp, and not being so stamped, it was void.

And the first question is whether the giving of the paper by the deceased was a good gift--causa mortis.

One of the requisitions of a gift causa mortis is, that the subject of the gift should be delivered. And a draft, note or bond is upheld as a gift, because it operates as an assignment of the money secured, and furnishes the means of obtaining it; but the check in question being void at the time of the gift, for want of a proper stamp, it neither operated as an assignment of the debt, nor did it furnish the means of obtaining the money: Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y., 93; Parish v Stone, 14 Pick. 198; Craig v. Craig, 3 Barb. Ch. R., 76; Fink v. Cox, 18 J. R., 145; Ward v. Turner, 2 Vesey, Sen., 431; Miller v. Miller, 3 P. Wms., 356; Duffield v. Elwes, 1 Sim. and Stew., 243; Noble v. Smith et al., 2 J. R., 52.

The next and only other question in this cause is, what was the effect of affixing a stamp on said check at the trial of the cause?

The one hundred and sixty-third section of the act of congress, approved June 30th, 1864, provides, in substance, that no writing which had been theretofore signed or issued without a stamp, or with an insufficient stamp, should be used as evidence until a legal stamp shall have been affixed, and the person desiring to use such writing in evidence is authorized to affix the stamp required.

It is conceded that the check in question comes within the provisions of this law, and could be made a valid instrument by affixing a proper stamp. But we submit that it would not have the effect to change the title. If it belonged to Mrs. Tyson after the stamp was affixed, it was hers before. And if it was hers before, it became so by virtue of the gift or by virtue of the foregoing enactment.

We have attempted to show that nothing passed by the gift. The ninety-fifth section of the law of July, 1862, makes all instruments without a proper stamp invalid, and without effect, and is distinguishable from the English revenue laws in that respect. See Edwards on the Stamp Act, p. 10.

This check then had no inherent properties at the time of the gift. It had none at the commencement of this suit. Our right of action was then perfect. If we lose our right of action by the act of 1864, it is because that act is to have a retrospective effect, so as to take from us our vested right. If such is the intention of the law, or such its legal effects, it would be clearly unconstitutional. See Dash v. Van Vleeck, 7 J. R., 477.

Bennett & Bancker, for defendant in error:

The act of congress, approved June 30, 1864, section one hundred and sixty-three, "authorizing a proper stamp to be placed on said check," and the law in that respect having been complied with, renders the check valid from its inception.

This act not only provides that instruments unstamped, or with deficient stamps, shall not be used in evidence until properly stamped, but also provides that no instrument, document or paper, made, signed, or issued prior to the passage of this act, without being duly stamped shall for that cause, if the stamp required by subsequently affixed, be deemed invalid and of no effect.

It is a general rule that penal and revenue acts are to be construed strictly, a liberal interpretation being given to words of exception: Edwards' Stamp Act, p. 12.

The interpretation ought to be dependent upon and have regard to the obvious meaning and intention of the legislature: Ib., p. 13, and cases cited.

With such construction, and by fair intendment, we deem the conclusion of the above proposition fully warranted, and the decision that, "if an instrument is properly stamped after proceedings have begun, it will be good ab initio," contained in Brown v. Savage, 5 Jurist, N. S., 10, 20 ed. Stamp Act., 237, applies.

By an examination into the occasion of the passage of the act of congress of June 30, 1864, two conclusions appear: 1. That the statute was intended to remedy the injurious operation of the previous rule declaring unstamped paper invalid; 2. That to give the statute a different construction than that claimed in our second proposition, would be necessarily productive of practical inconvenience to the community, and therefore to be rejected.

The act is remedial, and should be construed favorably.

OPINION

Cooley, J.

Emma E. Howells, being the holder of a draft drawn by defendant on a banking firm in Jackson for $ 600 at thirty days, dated August 10, 1863, made a gift of it causa mortis to her mother, Mrs. Tyson, the validity of which is disputed on the ground that the draft was void at the time of its inception and of the attempted gift.

At the time it was drawn the draft had placed upon it only a two-cent revenue stamp, while the law then in force--12 U.S. Stat. at Large, p....