Mismatched Documentaries On Land Contract

I imagine this has been asked and answered on a previous thread, but I will ask again. Here is an 1867 land contract with a pair of revenues, neither of which seem appropriate for this type of document: a 50¢ Entry of Goods and a 5¢ Playing Cards. Was this practice legitimate? And what would have been the appropriate revenue type to use?

These are both from the First Issue, the blue one is an 1862 Entry of Goods (Sc R55), and the red is an 1863 Playing Cards (Sc R28).

Up until 12/25/1862, the law stated that a revenue stamp could only be used for payment of the tax on a particular document whose name was inscribed on the stamp. After that date however, these US revenue stamps could be used indiscriminately on any document, regardless of the purpose or document name inscribed on each of the stamps.

So looks odd, but totally legit.

Thank you! I suspected that was likely the case. So before the law was revoked, would the proper revenue have been a Contract stamp (R34) or perhaps Agreement (R23)?

The playing card stamp should not have been used on a document. Both the playing card and proprietary titles were reserved for non-documentary use on such things as playing cards, perfumes, matches, and medicines. Some have called what you have shown as an illegal usage. They were certainly tolerated and were not prosecuted by Internal Revenue. For this reason I personally prefer the term improper usage. In any case these are unusual and desirable finds.

Looks like they traded land for a load of building bricks? Probably at the time "good, hard, merchantable brick" was more valuable/useful than some extra land.

Is there a reason for two different dates on the stamps? The 2¢ matches the date of the document. The 50¢ seems to have a date of July 9, 1870. Was that to cover some future action on the document; maybe when the deal was complete.
I have no idea/just curious.
Pat