Baldwin v. Commissioners of Washington County

• Decision Date: 18 February 1897
• Citation: 36 A. 764,85 Md. 145
• Parties: BALDWIN v. COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

36 A. 764

85 Md. 145

BALDWIN v. COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 18, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Washington county, in equity.

Bill by William W. Baldwin, guardian of Columbus C. Baldwin, against the county commissioners of Washington county, and D. Frank Hull, collector. There was a decree dismissing the bill, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Roberts J., dissenting.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, FOWLER, ROBERTS, and BOYD JJ.

Alex. Neill, Wm. W. Baldwin, and Charles A. Boston, for appellant.

Wm Kealhofer and Hy. Kyd. Douglas, for appellees.

BOYD J.

A bill in equity was filed by the appellant seeking to restrain the collection of certain taxes claimed by the appellees to be due. The appellees having answered, the cause was submitted to the court below on bill and answer and an agreed statement of facts. Those material to the questions involved in this appeal are that on November 15, 1879, Christopher C. Baldwin was appointed guardian of Columbus C. Baldwin by the orphans' court of Washington county, and he settled a number of accounts in that court; the last on April 15, 1884, showing a balance in his hands of $49,340.09. Of that amount $11,700.41 were received by the guardian as his ward's distributive share from the estate of James Dixon Roman, Jr., which was settled in the orphans' court of Washington county, and $32,285.44 from the estate of Louisa M. Roman, which was also settled in that court. The record is silent as to the balance, which may have been made up from the income, as it was probably not all used in the support of the ward, but that is immaterial. Christopher C. Baldwin was succeeded by R. W. Baldwin, who settled six accounts; and his administrator, on January 19, 1892, settled another, showing a balance of $57,343.50 in his hands. He having died, the appellant was appointed guardian in his place on August 21, 1891, and he settled an account September 23, 1892, showing a balance of $60,059.29. It is admitted that the appellant and his ward both reside in New York, and were residents of that city at the time the returns were made by the register of wills, as hereafter referred to, and when the taxes in controversy were levied, and that the ward became 21 years of age on January 6, 1893. On the 1st day of March in the years 1893 and 1894 the register of wills made his returns to the county commissioners of Washington county, showing that the sum of $44,856 was in the hands of this guardian liable to taxation, and the levy was made on the 1st day of June in each of those years. It is also admitted that the property and estate consists of stocks and bonds of corporations organized and located outside of the state of Maryland of the aggregate value of $44,856. The bill was filed February 12, 1895, and on February 15, 1895, the appellant settled another account in the orphans' court, showing a balance due his ward of $63,881.56, but still did not settle a final account. We are thus called upon to determine whether this property is liable to taxation in Washington county, notwithstanding the nonresidence of both guardian and ward. How far the fact that the ward was of age when the returns were made and the taxes levied can affect the question will be considered later. Section 9 of article 81 of the Code provides that: "The several registers of wills in this state shall annually, on or before the first day of March, return to the county commissioners, or appeal tax court, a summary account of all property that shall appear by the records of the several orphans' courts to be in the hands of each executor, administrator or guardian, as such; and all such property, if not before assessed, shall then be assessed; and every executor, administrator or guardian shall be liable to pay the taxes levied thereon, and shall be allowed therefor by the orphans' court in his account," etc. The returns of the register of wills of Washington county were made under the provisions of this section, and the levies were made by the county commissioners on the property thus returned. It being practically conceded that the property assessed is of such character as would be liable to taxation if the guardian and ward were residents of Washington county, we will not stop to discuss that question. It must, of course, be admitted that the situs of property of this kind, for the purposes of taxation, is ordinarily at the domicile of the owner, but the legislature has the power to fix a different situs, provided, of course, there be no conflict with some provision in the constitution. 1 Desty, Tax'n, 97; Cooley, Tax'n, 373. We have in this state some statutes which do determine where property shall be deemed to be situate for the purposes of taxation. For example, section 131 of article 81 of the Code provides where the stock of certain domestic corporations owned by nonresidents shall be deemed to be situate. So, by section 9 of article 81, above quoted, the legislature has fixed the place where personal property in the hands of the guardian shall be taxed. When it requires the register of wills to make the returns to the county commissioners, it means, of course, that the register of wills of each county shall make the returns to the commissioners of his county; and it provides that "all such property, if not before assessed, shall then be assessed," and "every executor, administrator, or guardian shall be liable to pay the taxes thereon." It does not say every guardian who is a resident of this state, or every guardian whose ward is a resident of this state, but the language used is at least broad enough to apply to every guardian who has been appointed as such in this state, and includes all property of such guardian; that is, of course, all property of such character as is taxable in this state. It fixes the situs of the property in the county or city where the guardian was appointed, and it matters not where the person who is guardian may reside. The office of guardian, so to speak, is fixed at the county where the appointment is made. If that be not so, then, if this ward was a resident of Washington county, his personal property would escape taxation there, because his guardian lived in New York. That would seem to be contrary to the manifest object and intention of the section of the Code above quoted.

In the case of Bonaparte v. State, 63 Md. 465, this same section was under consideration, and this court held that although Mr. Bonaparte, the executor of Mrs. Patterson, lived in Baltimore county, yet he was liable to Baltimore city for taxes on bonds and stocks of his testatrix, because letters testamentary had been granted to him by the orphans' court of Baltimore city. It was there said, in answer to the suggestion of the executor, that, because he was a resident of Baltimore county, he was taxable there, and nowhere else, by reason of the legal title to the intangible property being in him; "that he held such legal title is true; but he held it in the special character of an officer of the law, for the specific and temporary purpose of the administration of the property under the supervision and direction of the court from which he received letters testamentary. The domicile of the testator, when living, determines the situs of his personal property of an intangible nature not permanently located elsewhere, for purposes of taxation, and his place of domicile at the time of his death determines the place of administering his estate. The situs of the personal property, generally speaking, and the residence of the administrator, for the purposes of administration, place them, in legal contemplation, in the city or county of the court exercising jurisdiction. The personal property, therefore, of an intangible nature, not permanently located elsewhere, such as bonds and stocks, must be deemed to remain within the jurisdiction of the court pending the settlement of the estate, and be there liable to...