Smith v. Loughman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Loughman

226 A.D. 395, 235 N.Y.S. 520, 1929 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8732

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

DecidedJune 21, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 226 A.D. 395 (Smith v. Loughman) 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

Smith v. Loughman, 226 A.D. 395, 235 N.Y.S. 520, 1929 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is an essential element for relief by mandamus that the legal rights of the petitioner be clear. In this case the demand is that the Tax Commission be directed to refund the entire amount heretofore paid as the transfer tax on real property in this State formerly owned by Mary J. Smith, now deceased. This tax was fixed by an order of the State Tax Commission made on February 15, 1926. The decedent was a non-resident. The statute under which the tax was fixed (Tax Law, art. 10-A) was held to be unconstitutional. (Smith v. Loughman, 245 N. Y. 486.) The theory of the petitioner is that the estate now escapes all taxation. We do not take that sanguine view of the situation resulting from the abrogation of the first tax. (See Matter of Nash v. Lynch, 226 App. Div.-, decided herewith.) A tax yet to be fixed by the Tax Commission must be paid. If the tax as so fixed is less than the tax declared illegal, the balance must be refunded. (Laws of 1928, chap. 330, § 10.) The amount has not been determined, nor has there been refusal to make refund. The petitioner has not established her right to the peremptory mandamus order sought.

The order denying application should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Davis, Hill and Hasbrouck, JJ„, concur.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam.

It is an essential element for relief by mandamus that the legal rights of the petitioner be clear. In this case the demand is that the Tax Commission be directed to refund the entire amount heretofore paid as the transfer tax on real property in this State formerly owned by Mary J. Smith, now deceased. This tax was fixed by an order of the State Tax Commission made on February 15, 1926. The decedent was a non-resident. The statute under which the tax was fixed (Tax Law, art. 10-A) was held to be unconstitutional. (Smith v. Loughman, 245 N. Y. 486.) The theory of the petitioner is that the estate now escapes all taxation. We do not take that sanguine view of the situation resulting from the abrogation of the first tax. (See Matter of Nash v. Lynch, 226 App. Div.-, decided herewith.) A tax yet to be fixed by the Tax Commission must be paid. If the tax as so fixed is less than the tax declared illegal, the balance must be refunded. (Laws of 1928, chap. 330, § 10.) The amount has not been determined, nor has there been refusal to make refund. The petitioner has not established her right to the peremptory mandamus order sought.

The order denying application should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Davis, Hill and Hasbrouck, JJ„, concur.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D. 395, 235 N.Y.S. 520, 1929 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-loughman-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack