Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

478; Re Hughes, 95 N. Y. 55; Moses v. N. E. 623; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. Hart, 25 Gratt. 795; Harvey v. Richards, 189, 47 L. ed. 439, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; 1 Mason, 381, Fed. Cas. No. 6,184; Apple's Re Dingman, 66 App. Div. 228, 72 N. Y. Estate, 66 Cal. 432, 6 Pac. 9; Re Joyslin, Supp. 694; Re Green, 153 N. Y. 223, 47 76 Vt. 88, 56 Atl. 281; Re Weaver, 110 N. E. 292; Re James, 144 N. Y. 10, 38 Iowa, 328, 81 N. W. 603; Channel v. Capen, N. E. 961; Re Bronson, 150 N. Y. 1, 34 46 Ill. App. 234; Re Cummings, 63 Misc. L.R.A. 238, 55 Am. St. Rep. 632, 44 N. E. 621, 118 N. Y. Supp. 684; Overby v. Gor: 707; Dammert v. Osborn, 141 N. Y. 564, don, 177 U. S. 214, 44 L. ed. 741, 20 Sup. 35 N. E. 1088; Re Hull, 111 App. Div. 322 ; Ct. Rep. 603; Keeney v. New York, 222 97 N. Y. Supp. 701; People v. Griffith, 245 U. S. 525, 56 L. ed. 299, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) Ill. 532, 92 N. E. 313; Billings v. People, 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Pennoyer v. 189 II. 472, 59 L.R.A. 807, 59 N. E. 798; Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 722, 24 L. ed. 565, 568. Re Cummings, 142 App. Div. 377, 127 N. Y.

The order below fails to give due faith Supp. 109. and credit to the decree of distribution of The state of Illinois cannot be precluded the superior court of Los Angeles.

from taxing the succession to the personal Crew v. Pratt, 118 Cal. 139, 51 Pac. 38; property of its citizens when such property St. Mary's Hospital v. Perry, 152 Cal. 338, is located in a foreign state. The domicil 92 Pac. 864; Humphrey v. Protestant Epis- governs the principal succession. copal Church, 154 Cal. 170, 97 Pac. 187; Re Cummings, supra; Frothingham v. Childs v. De Laveaga, 150 Cal. 281, 89 Shaw, 175 Vass. 59, 78 Am. St. Rep. 475. Pac. 82; Murphy v. Crouse, 135 Cal. 14, 87 55 N. E. 623; Apple's Estate, 66 Cal. 432, Am. St. Rep. 90, 66 Pac. 971; Re Cum- 6 Pac. 7; Hopkins's Appeal, 77 Conn. 644, mings, 63 Misc. 621, 118 N. Y. Supp. 684; 60 Atl. 657; Re Hartman, 70 N. J. Eq. 664, Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 52 L. ed. 95, 62 Atl. 560; Miller's Estate, 182 Pa. 157, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1.

37 Atl. 1000; Re Short, 16 Pa. 63; State v. The attempted renunciation of the will Dalrymple, 70 Md. 294, 3 L.R.A. 372, 17 by th widow and her attack on the ante- Atl. 82; Kent, Com. 429; Murphy v. Crouse, nuptial agreement, which were abandoned 135 Cal. 14, 87 Am. St. Rep. 90, 66 Pac. and withdrawn, leave her subject only to 971; Collins v. Maude, 144 Cal. 289, 77 tax on the provision made by the will of Pac. 245. the testator.

Maud A. Robinson, widow, succeeded to Re Graves, 242 Ill. 212, 89 N. E. 978; the legal title of one half of decedent's Re Cook, 187 N. Y. 253, 79 N. E. 991; estate, less the debts, as of the date of Baxter v. The Treasurer, 209 Mass. 459, said decedent's death. The source of her 95 N. E. 854; People v. Cameron, 140 App. title is fixed by her renunciation of the Div. 76, 124 N. Y. Supp. 949; Barth v. will and the cancelation of the antenuptial Lines, 118 Ill. 374, 59 Am. Rep. 374, 7 N. E. agreement. Her succession to one half of 679; Kroell v. Kroell, 219 Ill. 105, 76 decedent's property is taxable as of dece. N. E. 63, 4 Ann. Cas. 801; People v. Field, dent's death. 248 Ill. 147, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 230, 93 N. E. Re Graves, 242 Ill. 212, 89 N. E. 978; 721;

Ward v. Ward, 134 Ill. 421, 25 Billings v. People, 189 Ill. 472, 59 L.R.A. N. E. 1012; Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick, 807, 59 N. E. 798; Friederich v. Wombacher, 197 Ill. 144, 64 N. E. 267; Scheible v. 204 Ill. 72, 68 N. E. 459; Gullett v. Farley, Rinck, 195 Ill. 636, 63 N. E. 497 ; Ward 164 Ill. 566, 45 N. E. 972; Lessley v. Lessv. Ward, 120 Ill. 118; Lurie v. Radnitzer, ley, 44 Ill. 527; National Safe Deposit Co. 166 Ill. 609, 57 Am. St. Rep. 157, 46 N. E. v. Stead, 250 Ill. 584, 95 N. E. 973, Ann. 1116; Logan v. Logan, 11 Colo. 44, 17 Pac. Cas. 1912B, 430. 99.

The renunciation of the widow was not Messrs. W. H. Stead, Attorney General, "withdrawn” in law. The state of Illinois and Walter K. Lincoln, for appellee: was a stranger to the administration pro

The law of the domicil of a decedent ceedings, and its right to a tax as of the governs the distribution of and succession date of decedent's death was not affected to all personal property owned by him at by the so-called "withdrawal of renun. death, regardless of where the property was ciation.” located.

Coles v. Terrell, 162 Ill. 167, 44 N. E. Russell v. Madden, 95 Ill. 485; Young 391; Davis v. Davis, 11 Ohio St. 386; Ashv. Wittenmyre, 123 Ill. 303, 14 N. E. 869; | lock v. Ashlock, 52 Iowa, 319, 1 N. W. Connell v. Crosby, 210 Ill. 380, 71 N. E. 594, 3 N. W. 131; Scheible v. Rinck, 195 350; Re Swift, 137 N. Y. 77, 18 L.R.A. Ill. 636, 63 N. E. 497; Re Cook, 187 N. Y. 709, 32 N. E. 1096; Jennison v. Hapgood, 253, 79 N. E. 991; Frank's Estate, 9 P&. 10 Pick. 77; Ramsay v. Ramsay, 196 Ill. Co. Ct. 662. 179, 63 N. E. 618; Frothingham v. Shaw, The contract of February 9, 1906, as 175 Mass. 59, 78 Am. St. Rep. 475, 55' confirmed by the decree of April 6, 1906, 85;

were

court:

canceled and obliterated the antenuptial, the widow withdrew her renunciation of agreement, and created a new contract be the will. tween the widow and the James C. King James C. King died seised of certain Home for Old Men, residuary legatee. property consisting of stocks and bonds of Lasher v. Loeffler, 190 Ill. 150, 60 N. E. non-Illinois corporations, which were at

Hale v. Bryant, 109 Ill. 34; Harrison that time lying in safety eposit box in v. Polar Star Lodge, 116 Ill. 279, 5 N. E. Los Angeles, California, amounting in value 543.

to something over $600,000. He also had a Whatever part of the widow's one half bank deposit of $16,140 in Los Angeles. that was actually received by the residuary His entire estate, real and personal, inlegatee, the James C. King Home for Old cluding the personal property in California, Men, pursuant to the contract of February amounted approximately to $4,100,000. In 9, 1906, was taken by assignment from the February, 1906, an administrator with the widow.

will annexed was appointed by the superior Re Graves, 242 Ill. 212, 89 N. E. 978; court of Los Angeles county, California, Re Cook, 187 N. Y. 253, 79 N. E. 991; who took possession of the personal propFrank's Estate, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. 662.

erty in that state left by the decedent. He

published a notice to creditors and filed an Carter, J., delivered the opinion of the inventory. No claims

presented

against the estate under that administraNovember 1, 1905, James C. King died tion. The California administrator, after testate, domiciled at Chicago, Illinois, paying the expenses of the administration, leaving him surviving a widow, Maud A. including inheritance taxes, paid out apRobinson King, but no child, children, or proximately $114,000 to the various legadescendants thereof. On July 10, 1901, an

tees under the will, said legatees being the antenuptial agreement was executed be- nephews, nieces, grandnephews, and grandtween said James C. King and Maud A. nieces, and a brother and sister of said Robinson, then a spinster, by which she testator, and including a $10,000 legacy to agreed to receive from his estate $100,000 a Pasadena hospital association. After the in lieu of all her future rights under the payment of these legacies and the costs and law as his wife or widow. By his will, inheritance taxes under the California laws, executed on July 6, 1901, after giving a

the administrator there had on hand for number of legacies to nephews, nieces, and distribution $439,727.17. The superior other persons, and a legacy of $10,000 to court of Los Angeles county, after approvMaud A. Robinson, whom he afterwards ing the payment of the costs, expenses, and married, he left the remainder of his estate inheritance tax, ordered and decreed that to a trustee to organize and maintain a the remainder of the property, consisting charitable institution to be called “The of said $439,727.17 in cash, be turned over, James C. King Home for Old Men." He under the provisions of the will, to the executed a codicil to his will July 13, 1901, Northern Trust Company of Chicago as in which he referred to the antenuptial trustee of said decedent, said sum to be set agreement, and republished and confirmed apart as provided by the will, as follows: the will with all of its terms, conditions, Forty thousand dollars for each of the and legacies, and stated that the antenup- testator's nephews and nieces, the net intial agreement was in lieu of a settlement come of said sum to be paid to them semifor all of his wife's interest in his estate. annually for fifteen years after the The will and codicil were admitted to pro- testator’s death, and at the end of said bate December 19, 1905, in the probate period the principal of said sums to be court of Cook county. December 23d of transferred, conveyed, and assigned to said that

nephews and nieces absolutely. If at any the widow executed an instrument year

time during the continuance of said trust repudiating the antenuptial agreement and

any of said nephews or nieces should die leayrenouncing the will. In February, 1906, the widow and the residuary legatee, the to take per stirpes the share in the income

ing lawful issue surviving, said lawful issue James C. King Home for Old Men, through and principal which their parent or parents its trustee, the Northern Trust Company, would have taken if living, and at the same entered into an agreement whereby the time said parents would have taken the widow was to retain as her share of the same if living. In the event of the death estate $600.000 in money and securities of any such nephews or nieces without lawand an income for her life from a fund | ful issue, then the funds set apart for such of $400,000. A bill was filed in the cir- deceased nephew or niece to be by said cuit court of Cook county with the necessary trustee at once transferred to and become parties, and a decree entered confirming this, a part of the residuary estate, upon a trust, compromise settlement. March 25, 1907, also, that there be paid out of the income

of the balance of said trust estate, if any, county court was without authority, under to the brother and sister of said testator, the law, to include the personal property in equal semiannual instalments, $2,500 per situated in California in fixing the inherannum during the life of the said brother itance tax. They argue that the power to and sister, and upon the further trust that tax is limited to property over which the the balance of said trust estate, if any, sovereign power of the state extends, and should be used for the creation, erection, that the personal property of a resident maintenance, and endowment of an old decedent located outside of Illinois is not men's home in or near Chicago. Then fol. within the dominion of the state. The lows in the decree a detailed statement as ancient maxim of the law was that the perto the management and care of said old sonal property followed the person. The men's home from said funds in accordance great increase in that class of property has with the provisions of the will.

necessitated certain limitations of the November 2, 1906, the county court of maxim, especially in matters of taxation. Cook county appointed an appraiser to “It is still the law that personal property recommend the amount of inheritance tax is sold, transmitted, bequeathed by will, in said estate. In March, 1907, the probate and is descendible by inheritance accordcourt of Cook county approved the final ing to the law of the domicil and not by report of the Union Trust Company, ad. that of its situs.” Eidman v. Martinez, 184 ministrator with the will annexed of said U. S. 578, 46 L. ed. 697, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. estate in Cook county, including the com- 515. The general rule in this country is promise settlement with the widow. In that the succession to movable property August, 1909, the appraiser reported to the is governed by the law of the owner's county judge of Cook county his appraise- domicil at the time of his death. Froth. ment, and the report was approved by said ingham v. Shaw, 175 Mass. 59, 78 Am. St. county judge. From the order approving Rep. 475, 55 N. E. 623. When, however, the report all parties appealed to the we apply the laws of another jurisdiction, county court of Cook county. That court we do so because the principles of comity thereafter entered an order fixing an in- recognize that those laws are applicable to heritance tax on all rights to succeed to a particular case. The succession deterthe property of said testator, including mined by the law of domicil is generally the legacies that had been paid by the recognized in other jurisdictions. This California administrator, less the exemp. recognition, however, is limited by the tions allowed by the law of this state. The policy of the local law, especially in mattax assessed by the order of the county ters of taxation and the subjecting of court against the legacies paid in full, and the personal property of nonresidents to the present value of those to be paid here the claims of local creditors. The law in after by the Northern Trust Company, was California is that the distribution of the $6,567.10. There were also future interests decedent's personal estate will be governed included in said fund paid the trust com- by the law of his actual domicil at the pany by the California administrator which time of his death, subject to certain limmight hereafter be required to pay an in- itations not here involved. Apple's Estate, heritance tax in this state. The order of 66 Cal. 432, 6 Pac. 7; Murphy v. Crouse, the county court also appraised the prop. 135 Cal. 14, 87 Am. St. Rep. 90, 66 Pac. erty received by Maud A. Robinson King, 971. "No one doubts that succession to the widow, at $2,044,685.82, and fixed the a tangible chattel may be taxed wherever tax, after allowing the exemptions, at the property is found, and none the less $20,246.85. The county court hield as a that the law of the situs accepts its rules proposition of law that the Union Trust of succession from the law of the domicil, Company of Chicago, both as administrator or that by the law of the domicil the chattel with the will annexed and in its corporate is part of a universitas and is taken into capacity, was liable for the inheritance tax account again in the succession tax there." of said widow, with interest until paid, Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 47 and was also liable for all inheritance taxes, L. ed. 439, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277. There with interest, due and owing in said estate, is no constitutional objection to a law and that said Union Trust Company, as which lays an inheritance or succession tax administrator with the will annexed and according both to the principle of the individually, and the Northern Trust Com- domicil and to the principle of the situs, pany, as trustee and individually, were although this may result in double taxajointly and severally liable for all inher- tion. 1 Whart. Confl. L. 3d ed. $ 80f. It itance taxes, and interest, on all legacies may be inexpedient or inconsistent that and successions payable out of the funds one state should tax according to the situs limited to said Northern Trust Company. and the other at the same time according

It is insisted by appellants that the to the fiction that succession after death

1

is governed by the domicil of the decedent, , in the place of the decedent's or testator's but these inconsistencies infringe no rule domicil. See, in addition to the authorities of constitutional law. Blackstone v. Miller, already cited, McCurdy v. McCurdy, 197 supra.

Mass. 248, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 329, 83 N. E. Counsel have cited many authorities with 881, 14 Ann. Cas. 859; Re Swift, 137 N. Y. reference to the power of a state as to gen-| 77, 18 L.R.A. 709, 32 N. E. 1096; Re Hull, eral taxes. Laws imposing general taxes 111 App. Div. 322, 97 N. Y. Supp. 701; upon real and personal property are not Re Miller, 182 Pa. 157, 37 Atl. 1000; Hopcontrolling and usually give little assist kin's Appeal, 77 Conn. 644, 60 Atl. 657 ; ance in considering the legality of inher-Re Howard, 80 Vt. 489, 68 Atl. 513; Dos itance taxes. People v. Griffith, 245 Ill. Passos, Inheritance Tax Law, 2d ed. § 46; 532, 92 N. E. 313. We therefore deem it Dicey, Confl. L. 2d ed. 664; McElroy, Transunnecessary to discuss or distinguish those fer Tax Law, 120, 37 Cyc. 1654, and cases authorities. Connell v. Crosby, 210 II, 380, cited. The constitutional right of a state 71 N. E. 350, cited and relied on, is not in to impose such a tax at the domicil of the point here, because the question there was decedent cannot be questioned. The diswhether an inheritance tax could be col-cussion in many of the decisions relied on lected in this state on real estate in another by appellants turns on the meaning of the state, and this court held that lands in a statute, and whether the legislature insister state pass, not under the laws of tended to levy such a tax. this state, but under those of the state The inheritance tax law of New York where the land is situated. That, however, contemplated that such a tax should be is not the law with reference to personal imposed. Re Swift, 137 N. Y. 77, 18 L.R.A. property in another state.

709, 32 N. E. 1096. That act, after that Counsel also rely on Keeney v. New York, decision, so far as it affects this question, 222 U. S. 525, 56 L. ed. 299, 38 L.R.A. ( V.S.) was substantially adopted in this state. 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105. In that case It must be presumed, therefore, that our Susan A. ney, a resident of New York, legislature intended it to receive the conexecuted in that state a deed whereby she struction given it by the courts of New conveyed a cattle ranch in Texas and cer- York. People v. Griffith, supra. The pertain stocks and bonds to the Fidelity Trust sonal property of the testator in California Company of Newark, New Jersey, to hold at the time of his death was subject to the in trust during her lifetime, and, after her payment of inheritance taxes in Illinois. death, to be paid to her children or their The further contention is made that the issue. The court, in discussing the question trial court in entering the order fixing the as to whether certain stocks and bonds in inheritance taxes on the personal property New Jersey were chargeable with a transfer found in California failed to give due tax in New York, after the death of Susan faith and credit to the decree of the superior A. Keeney, said (222 U. S. 537, 56 L. ed. court of Los Angeles county distributing 306, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1150, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. the estate and discharging the adminis108) that "the real estate and tangible trator. That decree found that all claims property in Texas were not within the presented against said estate had been paid, taxing jurisdiction of the state of New including taxes and inheritance taxes, and York, and there was no effort to tax the ordered that the administrator and his transfer of that property." Counsel argue sureties be relieved of any obligations from this statement that the court intended thereafter incurring. Was this finding conto include in the term “tangible property in clusive, under the statutes and practice Texas” personal property in that state, and of the courts of California, as to all claims to hold personal property not situated in against the estate, the executor, legatees, New York could not be compelled to pay a or distributees? transfer or inheritance tax. That certainly In Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 52 L. ed. was not the holding, for the opinion con- 95, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, the New York court tinues: "It is urged that on the same attempted to

inheritance tax principle the stocks and bonds could not against the property and the executor be taxed because they were in New Jersey when the estate had already been adminin the hands of a trustee holding title and istered upon and distributed in New Jersey; possession by virtue of a deed made three the New Jersey court holding that the years before the grantor died,” and the testator was a resident of that state. The property in New Jersey was held subject New York court held that the testator was to the New York transfer tax,

a resident of New York. The United States We believe the authorities are a unit in Supreme Court in that case held that the holding that personal property within the New York courts were not precluded by the jurisdiction of a foreign state may be made New Jersey courts from investigating subject to a succession or inheritance tax whether or not the testator was a resident

assess

an

of New Jersey or of New York. It further given to the judgments and public acts held that under the law and usage in the in every other state. The question in the courts of New Jersey, as presented in that Borer suit, so far as we can see, differed record, the New Jersey court had juris- | from Tilt v. Kelsey only in that in the diction to probate the will and administer latter case all of the property was finally the estate and direct the final distribution, distributed in New Jersey, while in the which should be final so far as concerned Borer Case only a part of the funds was any person who had a demand against the distributed in California. Under the holdestate; that, in ascertaining what faith ing in the Borer Case the contentions of and credit must be given to the judicial appellants on this point are without force. proceedings in New Jersey to carry into Without attempting here to decide effect the constitutional provision as to whether these two cases are in conflict or full faith and credit being given to the can be distinguished, we will consider judgment of any court in the United States, whether, under the rules of law laid down it must be ascertained what credit is given in Tilt v. Kelsey, supra, on the facts in to such judicial proceedings by the laws of this record, the county court of Cook New Jersey; that the full faith and credit county, in entering this judgment as to the to be given to the judgments of any court inheritance tax, contravened constitutional under the Constitution of the United States provisions. The New York courts, after a mean such faith and credit as are given in somewhat elaborate discussion of a similar the state where rendered; that “they can question, held that such a decree of a Calihave no greater or less or other effect in fornia court was binding only "on heirs, other courts than in those of their own legatees, or devisees,” and did not preclude state.” The court held that on the record collecting claims for inheritance taxes in there presented the decree of the New Jer- another state. Re Cummings, 142 App. sey court was a final bar to all claims as Div. 377, 127 N. Y. Supp. 109. While we against the estate and against the executors might not agree with all the reasoning in and distributees of the property.

that case, we think the conclusion was corIn the last case cited the United States | rect. If it be conceded, as contended by Supreme Court did not refer to the case of appellants, that under the statutes of CaliBorer v. Chapman, 119 U. S. 587, 30 L. ed. fornia, as construed by her courts, ordi532, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342. In the Borer nary claims of creditors against an estate Case a citizen in New Jersey recovered should be presented to the probate court, judgment in a civil action on a contract and that its determination to such against a citizen of Minnesota whose prop-claims, whether the creditor appears and erty was situated principally in California, presents his claim or fails to appear, will and who died testate, leaving real estate be conclusive, “subject only to be reversed, and personal property to various persons set aside, or modified on appeal” (William in Minnesota. His will was admitted to Hill Co. v. Lawler, 116 Cal. 359, 48 Pac. probate in Minnesota and letters testa. 323; Crew v. Pratt, 119 Cal. 139, 51 Pac. mentary issued thereon. Ancillary proof | 38; Toland v. Earl, 129 Cal. 148, 79 Am. was then made in California and letters St. Rep. 100, 61 Pac. 914; Childs v. De issued on the certified copy of the will, and Laveaga, 150 Cal. 281, 89 Pac. 82; St. the estate was administered in California Mary's Hospital v. Perry, 152 Cal. 338, 92 in accordance with the laws of that state Pac. 864), does it follow that the claim for and distributed according to the will. The the Illinois inheritance tax must be so final account was rendered to the probate presented in order not to be barred ? court in California and the executor dis- An inheritance tax has been held by the charged by that court. A creditor in Min- courts of California not to be one of the nesota did not present his claim for pay expenses of administration, or a charge ment in California. This creditor brought upon the general estate of the decedent, suit in Minnesota against one of the Min- but in the nature of an impost tax or tax nesota executors. The United States Su- upon the right of succession, to be imposed preme Court held that the creditor was not upon the several amounts of the decedent's barred by the proceedings and decree in estate to which the successors thereto are, California from the prosecution of the suit; respectively, entitled. It is a charge against that he had a right to follow into the hands each share or interest according to its of the holders in Minnesota, whether a value, and against the person entitled legatee or executor, the assets of the de- thereto. Re Chesney, 1 Cal. App. 31, 8). ceased which had been distributed by the Pac. 679; Re Wilmerding, 117 Cal. 281, 49 order of the probate court in California; Pac. 181. That is also the law in this and that the Minnesota court, in so doing, state. People ex rel. George v. Nelms, 241 was not contravening that provision of the 11l. 571, 89 N. E. 683. It was the intention Constitution respecting the faith to be of the legislature in this state that a per

as

« PreviousContinue »