In Re the Appraisal for Taxation of the Estate of Morgan

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Appraisal for Taxation of the Estate of Morgan

44 N.E. 1126, 150 N.Y. 35, 4 E.H. Smith 35, 1896 N.Y. LEXIS 951

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 44 N.E. 1126 (In Re the Appraisal for Taxation of the Estate of Morgan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Appraisal for Taxation of the Estate of Morgan, 44 N.E. 1126, 150 N.Y. 35, 4 E.H. Smith 35, 1896 N.Y. LEXIS 951 (N.Y. 1896).

Pincite

Opinions

Vann, J.

The decedent died on the 17th of December, 1894, a resident of Lakewood, Hew Jersey, leaving a will by which he gave substantially all of his estate to certain nieces and their children. His will was admitted to probate in the *36 city of Hew York on the 5th of April, 1895. His personal property, valued at $239,931.14, consisted of stocks and bonds of foreign and domestic corporations, mortgages upon lands in this state, and moneys deposited in banks in this state. All of the securities, with some unimportant exceptions, were habitually kept by the decedent in a safe deposit vault in this state, in charge of an agent in this state. The stocks of foreign corporations were excluded by the appraiser, while the bonds of foreign corporations were included by him. The decision of the surrogate, sustaining the appraisal, was affirmed by the Appellate Division upon the same grounds as in the Whiting case. There is no distinction between the two cases, except that in the latter it did not appear whether the foreign bonds were registered or coupon, while in the case in hand there were both kinds. I think that the decision of this case is governed by the rules laid down in the Whitmg and Houdayer cases, and that further discussion of the subject is unnecessary.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Vann, J.

The decedent died on the 17th of December, 1894, a resident of Lakewood, Hew Jersey, leaving a will by which he gave substantially all of his estate to certain nieces and their children. His will was admitted to probate in the *36 city of Hew York on the 5th of April, 1895. His personal property, valued at $239,931.14, consisted of stocks and bonds of foreign and domestic corporations, mortgages upon lands in this state, and moneys deposited in banks in this state. All of the securities, with some unimportant exceptions, were habitually kept by the decedent in a safe deposit vault in this state, in charge of an agent in this state. The stocks of foreign corporations were excluded by the appraiser, while the bonds of foreign corporations were included by him. The decision of the surrogate, sustaining the appraisal, was affirmed by the Appellate Division upon the same grounds as in the Whiting case. There is no distinction between the two cases, except that in the latter it did not appear whether the foreign bonds were registered or coupon, while in the case in hand there were both kinds. I think that the decision of this case is governed by the rules laid down in the Whitmg and Houdayer cases, and that further discussion of the subject is unnecessary.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 N.E. 1126, 150 N.Y. 35, 4 E.H. Smith 35, 1896 N.Y. LEXIS 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-appraisal-for-taxation-of-the-estate-of-morgan-ny-1896.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack