Summary

Hall v. Jordan (82 U.S. 393) — Opinion of the Court

It was right prim a facie and sufficient to make the deed evidence.
The rule of law required vendees to pay for the stamps. They cannot hold the bond and refuse to pay the purchase-money on the pretence that an insufficient stamp was affixed. They can still, themselves, affix a proper stamp.
Moreover, fraudulent intent must be proved to destroy the validity of an unstamped instrument. But the vendees, plaintiffs in error, do not admit that they have been guilty of this fraud, nor do they charge it on Jordan, the vendor.
Source: Wikisource

Hall v. Jordan (82 U.S. 393) — Opinion of the Court

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.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature