In re the Appraisal under the Transfer Tax Acts of the Property of Backhouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Appraisal under the Transfer Tax Acts of the Property of Backhouse

110 A.D. 737, 96 N.Y.S. 466, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 65

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 12, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 110 A.D. 737 (In re the Appraisal under the Transfer Tax Acts of the Property of Backhouse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 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 under the Transfer Tax Acts of the Property of Backhouse, 110 A.D. 737, 96 N.Y.S. 466, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 65 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The children of George Backhouse get the one-fifth of the estate of their grandfather by his will and not by the will of their father. It vested in them when the grandfather’s will took effect (Matter of Lansing, 182 N. Y. 238). It follows that it was not subject to a transfer tax, for the Transfer Tax Law had not yet been passed when it vested in them.

The surrogate had power to modify his decree, and should have done so, first, because ,the said children were not bound by it in so far as it imposed the tax in respect of the property they took under their grandfather’s will, for they were only notified of an appraisal of their father’s estate,' and that was therefore the limit of the jurisdiction of the appraiser and surrogate on their default; second, because the surrogate’s jurisdiction being limited to transfer's covered by the statute, he had no jurisdiction to impose the tax; and, third, because at most it was a mistake all round (Matter of Scrimgeour, 175 N. Y. 507). That in this Scrimgeour case the tax was imposed under an unconstitutional provision of the statute (a fact which the blind! report of the case conceals) does not distinguish it from the present case. In each case there was no statute for what was done.

There is no evidence that the said heirs ever elected to take under the appointment, if it can be called such,- of their father’s will, or if such election could be made.

The order should be reversed and the motion granted.

Hirsohberg, P. J., Woodward, Jerks and Hooker, JJ., concurred. •

Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county denying motion to modify the decree assessing transfer tax reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with costs.

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

Gaynor, J.:

The children of George Backhouse get the one-fifth of the estate of their grandfather by his will and not by the will of their father. It vested in them when the grandfather’s will took effect (Matter of Lansing, 182 N. Y. 238). It follows that it was not subject to a transfer tax, for the Transfer Tax Law had not yet been passed when it vested in them.

The surrogate had power to modify his decree, and should have done so, first, because ,the said children were not bound by it in so far as it imposed the tax in respect of the property they took under their grandfather’s will, for they were only notified of an appraisal of their father’s estate,' and that was therefore the limit of the jurisdiction of the appraiser and surrogate on their default; second, because the surrogate’s jurisdiction being limited to transfer's covered by the statute, he had no jurisdiction to impose the tax; and, third, because at most it was a mistake all round (Matter of Scrimgeour, 175 N. Y. 507). That in this Scrimgeour case the tax was imposed under an unconstitutional provision of the statute (a fact which the blind! report of the case conceals) does not distinguish it from the present case. In each case there was no statute for what was done.

There is no evidence that the said heirs ever elected to take under the appointment, if it can be called such,- of their father’s will, or if such election could be made.

The order should be reversed and the motion granted.

Hirsohberg, P. J., Woodward, Jerks and Hooker, JJ., concurred. •

Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county denying motion to modify the decree assessing transfer tax reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D. 737, 96 N.Y.S. 466, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-appraisal-under-the-transfer-tax-acts-of-the-property-of-nyappdiv-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack