Executors of Long v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Executors of Long v. State

153 N.E. 225, 21 Ohio App. 412, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 735, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 507

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 12, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 153 N.E. 225 (Executors of Long v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Executors of Long v. State, 153 N.E. 225, 21 Ohio App. 412, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 735, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 507 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

CUSHING, J.

Elizabeth T. Long a resident of New York died testate owning property in this state and by item 6 of her will left $2000 to Cornell University; also by item 13 she left $30,000 to said university. On Nov. 17, 1923 a duly certified copy of the will was filed in the Hamilton Probate Court together with a petition praying that the amount of inheritance tax thereunder should be determined.

On Dec. 13, 1923 the court found that W. T. Hilles was the successor to the property including item 13 above. The court then determined the amount of the inheritance tax that should be paid by Hilles. All parties in interest signed waivers of protest and the amount assessed was paid voluntarily to the treasurer of Hamilton County on the. same day. Also some time later a supplemental statement was filed and the inheritance tax thereon was voluntarily paid.

On Sept. 24, 1924, the executor filed an application for a refunder for all inheritance taxes paid to the Probate Court, the theory being that item 13 was a bequest to a University and under a reciprocatory act of New York, the two states exempted from tax any money going into either for educational pur poses. This question was raised under 5334 GC. None of the parties took exception to the finding of the Probate Court, and the law of New York was not pleaded until many months after said court’s decision.

The application for refunder was denied, and the cause taken to Hamilton Common Pleas upon the ground that the Probate Court had no jurisdiction. The finding of the Probate Court was affirmed, and error was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals which held:

1. Sec. 8, Art. 4, of the Constitution and 5340 GC. confer jurisdiction on the Probate Court to hear and determine all questions relating to inheritance taxes.

2. Jurisdiction does not relate to the rights of the parties, but to the power of the court; therefore as the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter it had the power to determine the rights thereunder.

3. The tax was paid voluntarily and there is a well established rule that no action can be maintained against a county treasurer for back taxes illegally assessed when no protest is made at time of payment. 40 OS. 306.

4. Under the above views the Hamilton Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

CUSHING, J.

Elizabeth T. Long a resident of New York died testate owning property in this state and by item 6 of her will left $2000 to Cornell University; also by item 13 she left $30,000 to said university. On Nov. 17, 1923 a duly certified copy of the will was filed in the Hamilton Probate Court together with a petition praying that the amount of inheritance tax thereunder should be determined.

On Dec. 13, 1923 the court found that W. T. Hilles was the successor to the property including item 13 above. The court then determined the amount of the inheritance tax that should be paid by Hilles. All parties in interest signed waivers of protest and the amount assessed was paid voluntarily to the treasurer of Hamilton County on the. same day. Also some time later a supplemental statement was filed and the inheritance tax thereon was voluntarily paid.

On Sept. 24, 1924, the executor filed an application for a refunder for all inheritance taxes paid to the Probate Court, the theory being that item 13 was a bequest to a University and under a reciprocatory act of New York, the two states exempted from tax any money going into either for educational pur poses. This question was raised under 5334 GC. None of the parties took exception to the finding of the Probate Court, and the law of New York was not pleaded until many months after said court’s decision.

The application for refunder was denied, and the cause taken to Hamilton Common Pleas upon the ground that the Probate Court had no jurisdiction. The finding of the Probate Court was affirmed, and error was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals which held:

1. Sec. 8, Art. 4, of the Constitution and 5340 GC. confer jurisdiction on the Probate Court to hear and determine all questions relating to inheritance taxes.

2. Jurisdiction does not relate to the rights of the parties, but to the power of the court; therefore as the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter it had the power to determine the rights thereunder.

3. The tax was paid voluntarily and there is a well established rule that no action can be maintained against a county treasurer for back taxes illegally assessed when no protest is made at time of payment. 40 OS. 306.

4. Under the above views the Hamilton Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 N.E. 225, 21 Ohio App. 412, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 735, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/executors-of-long-v-state-ohioctapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack