DOWaiiL », APPLBGATE. 883 �$1,000; that the record of said deeds was made in "vioIaJtion of the spirit and meaning of sectiona 152, 156 and 158" 6f said revenue act ; and that none of said stamps were "can- celled, " as provided in said act, prier to the recordiug of said deeds. �The defendants Charles and John C. Drain demur to the bill. It is not alleged in the bill that they are not purchasera in good faith and for a vaiuable consideration, and that they are such purchasers was adniitted on the argument, and therefore they are not affected by the alleged fraud in tho conveyance to said William A. �The only question made upon the demurrer is as to the validity of the deed to Drains under the stamp act of Jane 30, 1864, as amended by the act of July 13, 1866. The provis- iocs of the act which are cited as bearing upon the question are f ound in sections 152, 156, and 158, (13 St. 292-4; 14 St. 141-2.) Section 152, as amended, makes it unlawful to record any conveyance not duly stamped, or upon which the stamps are not cancelled as required by law, and declares the record of such conveyance "utterly void," and prohibits it from being used in evidence. It is piain that this section in nowise affects the validity of the original conveyance, but is confined to excludingit from the privilege of record, unless it is duly stamped and the stamps cancelled. Section 156> which is not amended by the act of July 13, 1866, supra, im- poses a penalty upon any person "who shall fraudulently make use of an adhesive stamp to denote any duty imposed by this act" without cancelling the same. This is a penalty without a prohibition, at least in terms* But it does not fol- lbw,if it were both, that a conveyance made contrary to it-^ one upon which the stanip is fraudulently uncancelledi — ia therefore void. Generally, TVhere' a penalty is imposed for the commission or 'omission of an act relating to a contraot with- out a prohibition; of such contract, the sameis not thereby made void. , �• Jti re Pittock, 2 Sawy. 423/ the court, following what is understood to be the doctrine of Harris \. Runnels, 12 How. 83, laid down the rule as follows : ��� �
