Attorney General v. Rafferty

95 N.E. 747, 209 Mass. 321, 1911 Mass. LEXIS 946
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided June 20, 1911·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Morton, J.

The defendant admits that some of the property distributed by her was subject to an inheritance tax under St. 1891, c. 425, and that the tax has never been paid. She contends that she is protected from liability by the decrees of distribution of the Probate Court under which she acted. It is not disputed that the Probate Court had jurisdiction of the estate and we assume in the defendant’s favor that the decrees of distribution and the decrees allowing her accounts were all properly entered, and that she acted in good faith. No reference was made to the inheritance tax in any of the proceedings. Since this case was argued the case of Attorney General v. Stone, ante, 186, has been decided. The precise point here raised was the subject of consideration in that case, and was determined adversely to the defendant’s contention. It is unnecessary, we think, to do more than refer to that case. We may add that no question is raised in regard to interest, and we have no means of knowing whether it was computed in this case according to the rule laid down in that case or not.

Decree affirmed.

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

Attorney General v. Rafferty, 95 N.E. 747, 209 Mass. 321, 1911 Mass. LEXIS 946 (Mass. 1911).

95 N.E. 747 (Attorney General v. Rafferty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation
162 N.E.2d 36 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
State Ex Rel. Pemberton v. United Pacific Casualty Insurance
62 P.2d 729 (Washington Supreme Court, 1936)
Watson v. Erickson
177 N.E. 99 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
In Re Estate of Meinert
213 N.W. 938 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1927)
State v. Nagle
164 P. 1073 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1917)