In Re Estate of Birch

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In Re Estate of Birch

259 N.W. 556, 193 Minn. 599

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 8, 1935

DocketNo. 30,141.

StatusPublished

This text of 259 N.W. 556 (In Re Estate of Birch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Estate of Birch, 259 N.W. 556, 193 Minn. 599 (Mich. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

¹ Reported in 259 N.W. 556. This case was argued at the same time as was In re Estate of Monfort, 193 Minn. 594, 259 N.W. 554, the opinion in which is filed herewith. The same issues were raised in each, and that case is controlling on this. *Page 600

In the instant case it was stipulated that the stock of Minnesota corporations owned by the decedent at the time of her death was all at her domicil in the state of New Jersey, except that certain shares were at that time on deposit for safekeeping only in a vault in Minneapolis and were not pledged or otherwise made use of within the state of Minnesota. Such facts showed affirmatively that the shares had nositus for inheritance tax purposes in Minnesota. Hence the decision that the tax was erroneously paid and the executor legally entitled to a refund was correct.

Affirmed.

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

¹ Reported in 259 N.W. 556. This case was argued at the same time as was In re Estate of Monfort, 193 Minn. 594, 259 N.W. 554, the opinion in which is filed herewith. The same issues were raised in each, and that case is controlling on this. *Page 600

In the instant case it was stipulated that the stock of Minnesota corporations owned by the decedent at the time of her death was all at her domicil in the state of New Jersey, except that certain shares were at that time on deposit for safekeeping only in a vault in Minneapolis and were not pledged or otherwise made use of within the state of Minnesota. Such facts showed affirmatively that the shares had nositus for inheritance tax purposes in Minnesota. Hence the decision that the tax was erroneously paid and the executor legally entitled to a refund was correct.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 N.W. 556, 193 Minn. 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-birch-minn-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack