Board of Domestic Missions of the Reformed Church in America v. Edwards

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Board of Domestic Missions of the Reformed Church in America v. Edwards

91 A. 989, 85 N.J.L. 24, 56 Vroom 24, 1913 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 41

DecidedNovember 3, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A. 989 (Board of Domestic Missions of the Reformed Church in America v. Edwards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Domestic Missions of the Reformed Church in America v. Edwards, 91 A. 989, 85 N.J.L. 24, 56 Vroom 24, 1913 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 41 (N.J. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court-was delivered by

Garrison, J.

The prosecutor is incorporated under the laws of the-State of New York as a charitable society and as such claims exemption from the payment of collateral inheritance taxes as legatee and devisee under the will of Susan YanNeste, who died in this state on February 28th, 1912, and whose will was admitted to probate in the county of Middlesex.

This claim is based upon the supplement to the Collateral Inheritance Tax act of 1894, approved March 15th, 1898 (Pamph. L., p. 106), which, if still in force, entitles the prosecutor to the exemption claimed by it.

This question was before the Prerogative Court in the case of In re Estate of Gopsill (7 Buch. 215), in which Vice Ordinary Walker (now'Chancellor) held that since the passage of the amendment to the Collateral Inheritance Tax act of [25]*251906 (at p. 432) the supplemental act of 1898 was no longer in force. We agree with the Mice- Ordinary that the act of 1898 has been eliminated not by its repeal but by its being superseded by later legislation covering the subject-matter. Eldridge v. Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Co., 54 Vroom 463.

The assessment and tax brought up by this writ are affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court-was delivered by

Garrison, J.

The prosecutor is incorporated under the laws of the-State of New York as a charitable society and as such claims exemption from the payment of collateral inheritance taxes as legatee and devisee under the will of Susan YanNeste, who died in this state on February 28th, 1912, and whose will was admitted to probate in the county of Middlesex.

This claim is based upon the supplement to the Collateral Inheritance Tax act of 1894, approved March 15th, 1898 (Pamph. L., p. 106), which, if still in force, entitles the prosecutor to the exemption claimed by it.

This question was before the Prerogative Court in the case of In re Estate of Gopsill (7 Buch. 215), in which Vice Ordinary Walker (now'Chancellor) held that since the passage of the amendment to the Collateral Inheritance Tax act of [25]*251906 (at p. 432) the supplemental act of 1898 was no longer in force. We agree with the Mice- Ordinary that the act of 1898 has been eliminated not by its repeal but by its being superseded by later legislation covering the subject-matter. Eldridge v. Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Co., 54 Vroom 463.

The assessment and tax brought up by this writ are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A. 989, 85 N.J.L. 24, 56 Vroom 24, 1913 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-domestic-missions-of-the-reformed-church-in-america-v-edwards-nj-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack