Carter v. Craig

90 A. 598, 77 N.H. 200, 1914 N.H. LEXIS 14
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedApril 7, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 90 A. 598 (Carter v. Craig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carter v. Craig, 90 A. 598, 77 N.H. 200, 1914 N.H. LEXIS 14 (N.H. 1914).

Opinions

The statute makes the passing of property by will subject to a tax when the beneficiary, as in this case, does not come within its exemptions. Laws 1907, c. 68, s. 1. It provides that "all property within the jurisdiction of the state, real or personal, or any interest therein, . . . which shall pass by will . . . to any person, absolutely or in trust, [except to the exempted class] shall be subject to a tax of five per cent of its value for the use of the state." It appears in the case that French made a will bequeathing and devising to Stone property as to the devolution of which the tax is sought to be imposed, that he did this pursuant to an agreement, that the will was proved and allowed, and that Stone accepted the provisions of the will and took title to the property thereunder.

The contract was to bequeath and devise the property to Stone. It was not a contract to convey, but to make a will in his favor; and French having made the will, and Stone having accepted its provisions and taken title to the property thereunder, the transmission was by will and is subject to the tax. Matter of Kidd, 188 N.Y. 274, 276. It can make no difference that there was a valid consideration for the contract to transfer the property by will. The imposition of the tax is not limited to property passing gratuitously by will, but extends to "all property" so passing. If the legislature had intended to limit the imposition of the tax to property passing gratuitously, it could easily have said so; but by providing that all property passing by will should be subject to the tax, it manifested an intention not to so limit it. State Street Trust Co. v. Treasurer,209 Mass. 373; Matter of Gould, 156 N.Y. 423.

The same intention is manifested in the further provisions of section 1, which subject to the tax "all property . . . which shall pass . . . by deed, grant, sale, or gift, made or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment after the death of the *Page 202 grantor." The terms "deed" and "grant" do not indicate that the transfers must be gratuitous to be subject to the tax. Transfers by such methods of conveyance are usually based upon a consideration, and a "sale" always is. The only limitation on the imposition of the tax upon such transfers, gratuitous or otherwise, would seem to be when they are not made or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment after the death of the grantor, bargainor, or donor.

Case discharged.

June 3, 1913, the justices concurred in the foregoing opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Bingham, but invited argument on the question of the constitutionality of so much of section 1, chapter 68, Laws 1907, as taxes property passing other than by will or inheritance.

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

Related

Bleiler v. Chief, Dover Police Department
927 A.2d 1216 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2007)
In re the Estate of McLeod
719 P.2d 88 (Washington Supreme Court, 1986)
Opinion of the Justices
509 A.2d 749 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1986)
In re Estate of Shaka
484 A.2d 1135 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1984)
Howarth v. State
470 A.2d 895 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1983)
Calawa v. Town of Litchfield
296 A.2d 124 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1972)
Kelly v. Glaser
271 A.2d 602 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1970)
Estate of Vai
417 P.2d 161 (California Supreme Court, 1966)
Cranston v. Bodkin
417 P.2d 161 (California Supreme Court, 1966)
City of Huntington v. State Water Commission
73 S.E.2d 833 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1953)
Kimball v. Badger
42 A.2d 1 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1945)
Sheppard v. Desmond
169 S.W.2d 788 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)
State v. Richardson
27 A.2d 94 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1942)
State v. Dickstein
3 A.2d 115 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1938)
Kimball v. Potter
196 A. 272 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1938)
Ex parte Martin
74 S.W.2d 1017 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1934)
McCullough v. Handley
165 Wash. 412 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
In Re Gaudette's Estate
5 P.2d 503 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
Bente v. Bugbee
137 A. 552 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1927)
Williams v. State
125 A. 661 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A. 598, 77 N.H. 200, 1914 N.H. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-craig-nh-1914.