Dick v. Murphy

128 Misc. 4
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1926
StatusPublished

This text of 128 Misc. 4 (Dick v. Murphy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dick v. Murphy, 128 Misc. 4 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1926).

Opinion

Staley, J.

The petitioner seeks a peremptory mandamus order directing the payment or refund of the excess of a transfer tax paid to the State Comptroller in the estate of William Dick, deceased, together- with interest thereon from the date of payment.

William Dick died in the county of Kings on April 5, 1912. His will, admitted to probate by the surrogate of Kings county, so far as here material, provides: “ One undivided half of such rest, residue and remainder to my son, J. Henry Dick, for him to have the use, income, and profit thereof during his lifetime, and after his death, I do give, devise and bequeath his said undivided half to his lawful heirs and next of kin, equally, per stirpes and not per capita.”

Transfer tax proceedings resulted in a tax of $70,486.99 on the share of the lawful heirs and next of kin of J. Henry Dick,” which tax was at the highest rate which, on the happening of any of the contingencies under such will, would be possible under the law. This tax, less allowance for discount, was paid to the State Comptroller by the estate.

J. Henry Dick, the life beneficiary, died on September 30, 1925, leaving two sons and two daughters him surviving. Thereafter and on April 14,1926, a decree was entered in such Surrogate’s Court modifying the original temporary taxing decree and providing for a tax upon the shares of the then known and ascertained lawful heirs and next of kin of J. Henry Dick of $18,759.16, leaving the amount with discounts due the estate on account of such tax of $49,141.44.

This amount is conceded to be due to the estate, and the Tax Commission is ready and willing to make payment. The only issue is whether the amount of the refund should be paid with interest; the petitioners claiming interest and the State opposing it.

At the time of the death of William Dick, and of the taxation of this estate, sections 230 and 241 of the Tax Law, as amended by chapter 800 of the Laws of 1911,

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

Related

In re the Transfer Tax upon the Estate of Spingarn
175 A.D. 806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)
People ex rel. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Travis
191 A.D. 129 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)
In re the Transfer Tax upon the Estate of DeCordova
199 A.D. 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)
People, ex rel. Bank of Monroe v. Canal Commissioners
5 Denio 401 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 Misc. 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dick-v-murphy-nysupct-1926.