In re Roebuck's Estate

140 N.Y.S. 1107, 79 Misc. 589
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 N.Y.S. 1107 (In re Roebuck's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Roebuck's Estate, 140 N.Y.S. 1107, 79 Misc. 589 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1913).

Opinion

KETCHAM, S.

[1] Question is made as to the rate of taxation upon legacies to children of the decedent’s illegitimate daughter, who themselves were born in lawful wedlock.

The order appealed from is right, unless these children of the daughter are lineal descendants of the decedent under the provision which prescribes 1 per centum as the rate of taxation upon transfers to “any lineal descendant of such decedent * * * born in lawful wedlock.” Tax Law, § 221 (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 60).

[2] “A lineal descendant is one who is in the line of descent from a certain person.” But the line of descent is not merely derived from the communication of blood by animal generation. “The line of descent is the course that property takes according to law when the owner dies.” Matter of Beach, 154 N. Y. 242, 48 N. E. 516; Matter of Cook, 187 N. Y. 253, 261, 79 N. E. 991.

These cases forbid the argument, made in behalf of the legatees, that the words “lineal descendants” in the statute cited supra are not used in their legal and technical sense. Under these authorities there is no line of descent between the decedent and these legatees, and they cannot be his descendants.

The order in this respect is affirmed.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

In Re Buell's Estate
117 P.2d 832 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 N.Y.S. 1107, 79 Misc. 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-roebucks-estate-nysurct-1913.