103 A. 861 (N.J. 1918), Hill v. Bugbee

Citation:103 A. 861, 91 N.J.L. 454
Opinion Judge:BERGEN, J.
Party Name:LOUIS HILL, ADMINISTRATOR OF JAMES J. HILL, DECEASED, PROSECUTOR, v. NEWTON A. K. BUGBEE, COMPTROLLER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Attorney:For the prosecutor, Coult & Smith. For the respondents, Herbert Boggs, assistant attorney-general.
Judge Panel:Before Justices BERGEN and BALACK.
Case Date:April 25, 1918
Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 861

103 A. 861 (N.J. 1918)

91 N.J.L. 454

LOUIS HILL, ADMINISTRATOR OF JAMES J. HILL, DECEASED, PROSECUTOR,

v.

NEWTON A. K. BUGBEE, COMPTROLLER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Supreme Court of New Jersey

April 25, 1918

Submitted March 21, 1918.

On certiorari to review inheritance transfer tax.

For the prosecutor, Coult & Smith.

For the respondents, Herbert Boggs, assistant attorney-general.

Before Justices BERGEN and BALACK.

OPINION

Page 862

BERGEN, J.

James J. Hill died intestate while a resident of the State of Minnesota, leaving real estate in that state [91 N.J.L. 455] and also in the State of New York, as well as personal property in New Jersey, the latter being subject to a transfer tax under the statute of New Jersey, and the comptroller of New Jersey, in determining the amount of the transfer tax, included the value of the lands in Minnesota and New York without allowance for the value of the interest of the intestate decedent's widow in such real estate. The amount of the tax as ascertained and levied is not disputed if the basis is correct. A writ of certiorari was allowed to review the comptroller's conclusion, and the only question presented is the legality of the inclusion of the value of the widow's dower, or interest in the lands in the amount upon which the transfer tax is based. Counsel for the defendant admits that the value of the interest of the widow in the New York land was improperly included because, under the law of that state, she takes as doweress and not by inheritance under any intestate law, and to that extent it is conceded that the assessment is erroneous. A different condition exists as to the land in Minnesota, for there dower has been abolished and by statute "the surviving spouse shall inherit an undivided one-third part of all other lands of which decedent at any time during coverture was seized or possessed to the disposition whereof, by will or otherwise, such survivor shall not have consented in writing," subject to a just proportion of decedent's debts not paid out of the personal estate.

Under this statute it cannot be doubted that as to lands in Minnesota the widow takes the undivided one-third of the lands of her deceased husband by inheritance and not as doweress, and that this interest is taken by inheritance and subject to a transfer tax, as a transfer by an intestate law of that...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP