Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 N.Y. 467

Moore v. . Moore

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 13, 1872

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1872-02-13

This action is brought to obtain partition of certain real estate, of which it is claimed that the parties who are husband and wife are seized as tenants in common. The judgment directs a sale of the premises, the payment of the plaintiff’s costs out of the avails of such sale, and a division of the residue between the parties.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Stamp”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-02-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1965 · most notably Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (1912), United States v. Fox (1876)

23 state decisions — followed in 11 states

701872188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 We have decided that an instrument in writing may be read in evidence, although there is not affixed to it an internal revenue stamp, as required by the terms of an act- of congress. (The People ex rel Barbour v. Gates, 43 N. Y., 40.) This went upon the principle that the federal government could not prescribe a rule of evidence for the State courts. We now hold that it is not in the constitutional power of congress to prescribe for the States a rule for the transfer of property within them. Without denying that it is within the power of taxation, conferred upon it, for Congress *469 to lay an excise tax upon the business operations of communities, and to collect that tax by the means of stamps, to be placed upon the written instruments exchanged between contracting parties, and to enforce the observance of the law, to that end, by the imposition in it of penalties for its nonobservance, we are of the opinion that it is without that power to declare that a contract or conveyance between citizens of a State, affecting the title to real estate, is void, for the reason that such observance has been omitted. Apart, then, from any consideration of the sufficiency of the stamping and the canceling which took place before the referee, we think that these deeds were valid, and passed to the plaintiff, an estate in fee simple absolute, to one equal undivided half part of the premises in the deeds described.

¶2 The deeds being operative, on the execution of them the plaintiff, being a married woman, held this equal, undivided half part as her separate estate, or a part thereof. In relation to it, the plaintiff can maintain an action in the same manner as if she were a feme sole. (Code, § 114, Laws of 1862, chapter 172, p. 343, section 3.)

¶3 And this action being one in equity, she can, though a married woman, maintain it against the defendant, though her husband. (Martin v. Martin, 1 Comstock, 473; 1 Daniels’ Chy. Pr., 110 ; Story Eq., § 61 ; 2 Story Eq. Juris., § 1361; 1 id., § 646.) The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

¶4 All concur.

¶5 Judgment affirmed.

/47/ny/467 · .json · Public domain