Buchanan v. Talbot County Commissioners

• Decision Date: 13 December 1877
• Citation: 47 Md. 286
• Parties: ANN C. BUCHANAN v. THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TALBOT COUNTY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

47 Md. 286

ANN C. BUCHANAN v. THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TALBOT COUNTY.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 13, 1877

TAXATION.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Talbot County.

This suit was instituted by the appellees in the Circuit Court for Talbot County, for the recovery of $145.32, with interest thereon, being the amount of tax due to Talbot County, for the year 1876, on $19,638.00, the assessed value of certain legacies bequeathed for the use of the appellant, for life by the last wills of her deceased father, Edward Lloyd, and her deceased mother, Sally Scott Lloyd.

Edward Lloyd, the father of Mrs. Buchanan, devised to his sons Edward, Murray and Daniel, in trust for her, a tract of land called Davis' Farm, together with the sum of $5,000. The trust, so far as is necessary to state it for the purposes of this case, was to "collect and receive the profits and interest of the said lands and money," and pay them over to Mrs. Buchanan to her separate use for life. The will further provided that Murray Lloyd should attend to and manage his sister's affairs during their joint lives. By a codicil to this will, the testator revoked the devise of the Davis' Farm and gave it to his son Daniel, in consideration of the payment to Mrs. Buchanan, by the latter of $10,000. He gave to the same trustees for Mrs. Buchanan in lieu of the farm, the sum of $15,000 on the same trusts of which $10,000 was to be paid by his son Daniel and $5,000 by his son Edward, in consideration of which payment by the latter, he gave him also a farm. No part of this money or the additional $5,000 given by the will, was ever paid to the trustees out of the deceased's estate, nor did Edward or Daniel Lloyd ever set apart or invest for Mrs. Buchanan any portion of the fund, except $7,500, with which they bought a farm called "The Rest," on which the taxes have always been paid and which is not involved in these proceedings. Edward Lloyd, (the son) however, became the purchaser of his brother Daniel's estate in the farm devised to the latter and assumed payment of the interest on the legacies to his sister, which he duly paid while he lived. On the death of Edward Lloyd, (2nd) however, no part of his personal estate was applied to payment of those legacies by his son and executor Edward Lloyd, (3rd) but he has simply gone on paying the interest upon them to Mrs. Buchanan, as his father did before him.

Certain other moneys bequeathed to Mrs. Buchanan by her mother, are in precisely the same condition as those above mentioned, and it is admitted that the amount ($19,638) taxed by the Commissioners and for the taxes on which this suit was brought, is composed entirely of the uninvested money in the hands of the present Edward Lloyd, on which he pays interest as aforesaid.

It is further admitted that all of the real estate aforementioned has duly paid taxes in the hands of its several owners, without diminution or deduction by reason of the indebtedness aforesaid to Mrs. Buchanan, and that the present Edward Lloyd pays taxes on all his real and personal estate without any such diminution.

The fund in question is taxed by the appellees as "private securities," and the question is as to whether it is lawfully taxable as against Mrs. Buchanan, under the law existing prior to the legislation of 1876.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., MILLER, BRENT and STEWART, J.

S. T. Wallis, for appellant.

The liability of the appellant for the tax which is sought to be imposed must arise, if at all, under the 2nd section of the Act of 1874, ch. 483. The only expression therein used which can possibly apply to the case is the following: "All debts secured by, or investments in private securities of any kind, nature and description, * * * * * shall be liable, &c." The naked enquiry, therefore, is whether the trust interest held by Mrs. Buchanan under her father's will, is a debt secured by private securities, or an investment in private securities of any kind. The County Commissioners have classified the fund simply as "private securities," and taxed it under that name.

It does not appear necessary to consider the question whether the legacy to Mrs. Buchanan is or is not a charge upon the lands devised by her father to his sons, Edward and Daniel, respectively. By the terms of the will it was made a debt from those gentlemen to their sister, and it is very clear that a distinct personal liability was created and accepted. It was not the intention of the testator that the money should remain uninvested, for his express direction was that it should be paid over and invested in some safe fund, and that his sons should pay interest upon it, till such investment should be made. By common consent, and in reliance upon the credit and sufficiency of the trustees and debtors, the matter appears to have been left tacitly as it was in the beginning, and the money has never been invested as the case stated concedes. No claim has ever been made against the personal estate of the testator or either of his sons. The amount has been simply treated and recognized as a debt, in the just confidence existing between persons so nearly allied in blood and affection. No security has been asked or given for the payment of the money, principal or interest; and the question, whether, if required to be recovered, it could be realized by a proceeding in equity against the land, as well as a suit at law against the person, is not believed to affect the question of its taxability under the statute referred to. "Private securities," in contemplation of that Act, are believed to be securities given or executed by private persons as contradistinguished from securities of a public nature. There seems no reason for regarding a legacy payable out of the realty, as any more "secured," than a legacy payable out of the personalty, by the source from which it is to come. If such were the law any debt payable out of a fund would be taxable under the statute in question.

It is part of the case stated, that the whole of the land involved has regularly paid its full taxes, undiminished by any supposed charge for the benefit of Mrs. Buchanan. If it is subject to a charge, created in the very initiation of the title of those who took under the will of Col. Lloyd the elder, it would seem very clear, that their real interest in the land was by so much the less, and the county certainly loses nothing by the...