Attorney-General v. . Pierce

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Attorney-General v. . Pierce

59 N.C. 240

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 59 N.C. 240 (Attorney-General v. . Pierce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Attorney-General v. . Pierce, 59 N.C. 240 (N.C. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

Batxltd, J.

This is an information, in the name of the Attorney General, filed for the purpose of recovering from the defendant, as the executor of Stephen J. Pierce, the tax on legacies to collateral kindred, imposed by the act of 1846, chapter 72. The defendant, in his answer, sets up two objections to the claim, one of which goes to its merits, and the other, only to the form of the remedy.

1st. The first objection is, that the tax, specified in the act referred to, does not attach to the legacy in question, because it is the bequest of a remainder, after a life-estate given to the mother of the testator; or if it do attach to the legacy, it is not to be paid until the property comes into possession upon the death of the tenant for life. The objection, in either form of it, is untenable. The words of the act are sufficiently extensive to embrace such a legacy, and the manner in which the executor is directed to account for and pay over, the tax by *242 the 4th section, shows that it is due immediately. The bequest of a remainder in slaves, or the specified articles, will, of course, be of less value than the whole interest in such slaves or other chattels, but it will have some immediate value, and that can be ascertained in the mode pointed out by the act of 1848, chap. 81, for assessing the value of slaves and other specific personal estate given by will to collateral kindred.

The 2nd objection, is to the form of the suit, the defendant insisting tho bill ought to have been filed in the name of the State, as is expressly required by the act of 1858, ch. 25, sec. 80. The answer is, that the 114th section of the latter act, excepts from its operation taxes due under the provisions of any former law, and the case of tho State v. Brim, 4 Jones' Eq. 800, shows that under such law, an information, in the name of the Attorney den eral, is the most approved form of proceeding.

The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for an account, and to have the amount of taxes, to which the State is entitled, ascertained and paid in the manner prescribed by law.

Pjsr OjsiaM, Decree accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Batxltd, J.

This is an information, in the name of the Attorney General, filed for the purpose of recovering from the defendant, as the executor of Stephen J. Pierce, the tax on legacies to collateral kindred, imposed by the act of 1846, chapter 72. The defendant, in his answer, sets up two objections to the claim, one of which goes to its merits, and the other, only to the form of the remedy.

1st. The first objection is, that the tax, specified in the act referred to, does not attach to the legacy in question, because it is the bequest of a remainder, after a life-estate given to the mother of the testator; or if it do attach to the legacy, it is not to be paid until the property comes into possession upon the death of the tenant for life. The objection, in either form of it, is untenable. The words of the act are sufficiently extensive to embrace such a legacy, and the manner in which the executor is directed to account for and pay over, the tax by *242 the 4th section, shows that it is due immediately. The bequest of a remainder in slaves, or the specified articles, will, of course, be of less value than the whole interest in such slaves or other chattels, but it will have some immediate value, and that can be ascertained in the mode pointed out by the act of 1848, chap. 81, for assessing the value of slaves and other specific personal estate given by will to collateral kindred.

The 2nd objection, is to the form of the suit, the defendant insisting tho bill ought to have been filed in the name of the State, as is expressly required by the act of 1858, ch. 25, sec. 80. The answer is, that the 114th section of the latter act, excepts from its operation taxes due under the provisions of any former law, and the case of tho State v. Brim, 4 Jones' Eq. 800, shows that under such law, an information, in the name of the Attorney den eral, is the most approved form of proceeding.

The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for an account, and to have the amount of taxes, to which the State is entitled, ascertained and paid in the manner prescribed by law.

Pjsr OjsiaM, Decree accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 N.C. 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attorney-general-v-pierce-nc-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack