Beck v. State (In re Cudahy's Estate)
| Decision Date | 06 March 1928 |
| Citation | 196 Wis. 260,219 N.W. 203 |
| Parties | IN RE CUDAHY'S ESTATE. BECK ET AL. v. STATE ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Milwaukee County; M. S. Sheridan, Judge. Affirmed.
Petition to the county court of Milwaukee county by heirs and donees of Patrick Cudahy, deceased, filed October 8, 1926, to amend and correct the order of said court determining the inheritance tax due from said estate, made on the 28th day of June, 1921. From an order denying the petition, said heirs and donees bring this appeal.Lines, Spooner & Quarles, of Milwaukee (Malcolm K. Whyte, of Milwaukee, of counsel), and Louis A. Dahlman and George Ballhorn, guardians ad litem, both of Milwaukee, for appellants.
John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., Eugene Wengert, Dist. Atty., Daniel W. Sullivan, Corporation Counsel, and C. Stanley Perry, Asst. Dist. Atty., all of Milwaukee, for respondents.
The heirs and donees of Patrick Cudahy, deceased, instituted these proceedings in an effort to secure a rebate of inheritance taxes imposed upon gifts made to them by Patrick Cudahy, deceased, during his lifetime; it appearing by the decision of the federal Supreme Court in the case of Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U. S. 230, 46 S. Ct. 260, 70 L. Ed. 557, 43 A. L. R. 1224, that the statute resulting in the order or judgment of the county court was unconstitutional. The taxes thus sought to be recovered are the same as those involved in Beck v. State, 219 N. W. 197, decided herewith.
The original order imposing the tax was made on the 28th day of June, 1921. The petition herein was filed with the county court on the 8th day of October, 1926, more than 5 years subsequent to the entry of the original order or judgment. The county court held that it had no power or authority to open up or modify the original judgment, and denied the prayer of the petition. Our first inquiry will be directed to the question whether any authority for the granting of such petition by the county court can be found.
Section 72.15 (11) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that any person dissatisfied with the appraisement or assessment and determination of such tax may apply for a rehearing thereof before the county court within 60 days from the fixing, assessing, and determination of the tax by the county court. This is a statute dealing specifically with the question of rehearing in the matter of the determination of the inheritance tax. By the application of familiar rules of statutory construction, it would seem that this statute would govern and prevail over any other general statute authorizing rehearings by the county court. However, we shall not definitely decide that question, unless there be found some other statute or authority under which the county court was permitted to grant this application. If there be found no authority anywhere for the granting of the application, it will be unnecessary to consider any question relating to conflicting provisions of the law.
Under section 324.05, the county court is authorized within one year to grant an extension of the time within which an appeal from an order or judgment of the county court must be taken (which is 60 days), “if it shall appear that justice requires a revision of the case, * * * or the county court may in its discretion reopen the case and grant a retrial of the matter complained of.” As a condition of the exercise of this power on the part of the court, it must appear that the party applying omitted to take an appeal according to law from some cause “without fault on his part.”
[1] As appears in the case of Beck v. State, supra, decided herewith, this tax was paid under protest. The constitutionality of the 6-year statute (section 72.01[3]) was raised at the hearing held for the purpose of determining the inheritance tax. The constitutionality of the statute was upheld. The petitioners here, as well as the executors of the estate, knew that they had the right of appeal from that judgment. They did not appeal. They accepted from the state and county treasurers the rebate to which they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beck v. State
... ... OWEN, J. On July 24, 1920, and within one year after the death of Patrick Cudahy, deceased, the executors of his estate paid to the treasurer of Milwaukee county the sum of $222,237.49, the estimated amount of the inheritance tax due from the estate to the state of ... ...
-
Baumgarten's Estate, In re
...court did not have jurisdiction to enter it, or which was obtained by fraud. In re Fisher, 1862, 15 Wis. *511, *521; Estate of Cudahy, 1928, 196 Wis. 260, 263, 219 N.W. 203; Will of Pettee, 1954, 266 Wis. 347, 352, 63 N.W.2d 715; and Estate of Kammerer, 1959, 8 Wis.2d 494, 502, 99 N.W.2d 84......
-
Pugh v. Fowlie (In re Penney's Estate)
... ... Thereafter, the case of Schlesinger v. State of Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 230, 46 S.Ct. 260, 70 L.Ed. 557, 43 A.L.R. 1224, had held that the statute ... ...
-
Schlesinger v. State
... ... of property within six years prior to death which were in the nature of a distribution of estate, if made without adequate valuable consideration, should be construed to have been made in ... ...