Cornwall v. Todd

38 Conn. 443
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedSeptember 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 38 Conn. 443 (Cornwall v. Todd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cornwall v. Todd, 38 Conn. 443 (Colo. 1871).

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

The petitioner ■ is the executor of the will of Thomas D. Moss, deceased. In the year 1869, he made and returned to the assessors of the town a list of the taxable property of the estate, not in his own name as trustee, but in the name of Thomas D. Moss’s estate.” At that time the estate had not been distributed or finally disposed of by the court of probate. There was included in the list real estate and money at interest. Thomas D. Moss at the time of his death resided in the fifth school district in the town of Cheshire, where his widow still resides, and where the real estate named in said list is situated. The petitioner resides in the first school district. The fifth district laid a tax on the list of 1869, including in the rate bill a tax against the estate of said Moss on the real and personal property in said list. The respondent is the collector of said tax. This petition is brought to restrain him from collecting the tax on the sum of four thousand dollars money at interest.

1. The petitioner claims exemption under the statute, section 20, page 712, which requires personal property in the hands of a trustee to be set in the list in the town in which such trustee resides. In analogy to that statute, the claim is that such property can only be taxed for district purposes in the district Where the trustee lives. If this is to be regarded as trust property, and the petitioner' as trustee within the meaning of this statute, we should probably yield to the force of this suggestion. That an executor or an administrator, during the settlement of the estate and before final distribution, is in some sense a trustee, cannot be denied ; but we do not think he is such a trustee as this statute contemplates.

[445]*445The next section provides that the real and personal estate of any insolvent debtor, or deceased person, which has not been distributed or finally disposed of by the court of probate, may be set in the list for taxation either in the name of such insolvent debtor’s estate, or of such deceased person’s estate, or in the name of the .trustee, administrator, or executor of such estate, as such, at the option of the person whose duty it is to present the list of such property to the assessors. If the 20th section applies to an ordinary executor or administrator during the settlement of the estate, the statute manifestly requires the personal property of a deceased person’s estate to be set in the list in the town where the executor or administrator resides ; and in all those cases where he resides in a different town from that in which the deceased lived, the personal property, for the purposes of taxation, is immediately transferred from the place of domicil of the deceased to the place of residence of the executor. Such a result could not have been intended by the legislature, and we are quite confident that such has not been the practice. Executors and administrators are officers of the law. Ordinarily they have no interest in the property held by them as such. The legal title vests in them merely to enable them to collect, care for and dispose of the property, for the payment of debts, and for distribution among heirs or legatees. It is for a specific purpose and for a limited time, usually a year more or less. But when a party is made a trustee by deed or will, for the use of another, or for some charitable purpose, the property vests in him usually for a lifetime or longer. In respect to such trusts, there is a reason for declaring the sense of the legislature as to the place where the trust property shall be taxed; but we see no occasion for requiring the personal property of a deceased person, during the settlement of the estate, to follow the same rule. The 20th section has reference to one class of trusts, and the 21st section to another. The former does not include the latter. The language of the statute, as well as its spirit and obvious meaning, will bear this construction, while practical convenience would seem to require it. In this case, upon the facts found, the petitioner must be regarded as [446]*446an executor, and not as a trustee, and the property taxed as belonging to the estate of Thomas D. Moss in process of settlement, and not as property held in trust in the ordinary way. The will gives no interest to the executor, and no title vests in him except such as vests by operation of law. It gives the use and improvement of all the property to the widow during her natural life. It does not in terms constitute the executor a trustee, and if he is a trustee at all, it is only by implication.

2. The petitioner in the next place claims that said pe: - sonal property was not legally taxable in the fifth school district, for the reason that it was not the property of any person resident therein. The statute, section 130, page 349, is as fol lows: “ Whenever a'district shall impose a tax, the same shall be levied on all the real estate situated therein, and upon the polls and other ratable estate, except real estate situated without the limits of such district, of those persons who are residents therein at the time of laying such tax.”

■ The question practically resolves itself into this: Who, for the purposes of taxation, is to be regarded as the owner of this property ? We think we may with propriety say that it belongs to the estate. It does not belong to the executor, except in a limited sense, as we have already seen. It does not belong to the heir before distribution ; and ordinarily the legatee has no claim until the debts, are paid. In common parlance we speak of the property as the estate; and of the different items of property as belonging to the estate. And when the statute authorizes the executor to put the property in the list in the name of the deceased person’s estate, it regards the estate as an intangible being or person capable of owning property. The executor or administrator represents that being, and speaks and acts for it, and in its name and behalf.

Again. So far as property is concerned, and for the purposes of collecting and paying debts, and doing justice by others, the acts and doings of a deceased person while in life still continue to affect the living. In a certain legal sense, therefore, and for certain purposes, he still lives, and will continue to live until those purposes are fully accomplished. As he is incapable of acting for himself, the executor or ad[447]*447ministrator represents him. The law requires this property, while in a transition state from the dead to the living, to bear its proportion of the public burdens. For the purposes of taxation, therefore, it must have a situs. None can be more appropriate than the place where the deceased lived and died. .1 apprehend, therefore, the true rule to be this: The personal property of a deceased person is taxable, during the settlement of the estate, in the place of domicil of the deceased. When it comes into the possession of the heir or legatee, it must be taxed in the place where the heir or legatee resides. When it goes into the hands of a trustee, under the will or otherwise, then the statute governs it, and it must be taxed where the trustee resides, or where the person resides for whose use it is held in trust, as the case may be. Such a rule is in harmony with all the provisions of the statute, is easily understood, can be easily applied, and will work no injustice.

The greatest, and perhaps the only, objection that can be urged against this rule is, that we cannot say in strictness that the deceased or his estate is a resident of the district. This objection assumes that the statute is to be strictly construed.

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

Related

FuelCell Energy, Inc. v. Groton
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2024
Randolph Fndn. v. Appeal Fr. Prob., No. X05 Cv 98-0167903 S (Apr. 3, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 4795 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
United Illuminating Co. v. City of New Haven
692 A.2d 742 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1997)
Zempsky's Appeal from Probate
506 A.2d 1050 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1986)
United Aircraft Corporation v. Fusari
311 A.2d 65 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1972)
O'LEARY v. McGuinness
98 A.2d 660 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1953)
Talbot v. Fair-Chester Oil Co.
8 Conn. Super. Ct. 340 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1940)
Johnston v. Willis
127 A. 862 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1925)
Bankers Trust Co. v. Blodgett
114 A. 104 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1921)
City of Blakely v. Hilton
102 S.E. 340 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Rixey's Executors v. Commonwealth
99 S.E. 573 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1919)
Millers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. City of Austin
210 S.W. 825 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
State v. Beardsley
77 Fla. 803 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1919)
South Spring Ranch & Cattle Co. v. State Board of Equalization
139 P. 159 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1914)
Knox v. Emerson
123 Tenn. 409 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1910)
Brewer v. Nutt
45 S.E. 269 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Mills v. County of Thurston
47 P. 759 (Washington Supreme Court, 1897)
White v. Town of Portland
36 A. 46 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1896)
Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright
35 L.R.A. 497 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1895)
Aggers v. People ex rel. Montclair
20 Colo. 348 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Conn. 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornwall-v-todd-conn-1871.