Bugbee v. Bd. of Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church

Citation131 A. 924
Decision Date29 January 1926
Docket NumberNos. 237, 238.,s. 237, 238.
PartiesNewton A. K. BUGBEE, Comptroller, etc., Prosecutor, v. BOARD OF HOME MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Defendant. Newton A. K. BUGBEE, Comptroller, etc., Prosecutor, v. BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Defendant.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Argued October 8, 1925, before PARKER, MINTURN, and BLACK, JJ.

Edwadr L. Katzenbach, Atty. Gen., and Harry R. Coulomb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the prosecutor.

PER CURIAM. The. question involved in these cases is whether the several gifts of William E. Honeyman during his life are taxable under section 1, subdivision 3 of the Transfer Inheritance Tax Act. 4 Comp. St. of N. J. p. 5301, as amended, 2 Cumul. Supp. p. 3573. Five years before the death of William E. Honeyman he gave and transferred to each defendant the aggregate sum of $6,000 each in three separate amounts and transactions, and on separate dates covering a period of two months. On an appeal from the assessments, the cases were heard by Vice Ordinary Buchanan, he advised a decree that the assessments made against the Board of Foreign Missions should be set aside absolutely, that the assessments made against the Board of Home Missions should be sustained as to the gift of $2,000 made November 19, 1912, but set aside absolutely as to the remainder. The Vice Ordinary prepared and filed a learned and persuasive opinion covering the points involved in both cases. We think the decree of the Prerogative Court in each case should be affirmed, for the reasons stated by the learned Vice Ordinary in the opinion filed. In re Honeyman's Estate, 129 A. 393.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Darr v. Kervick
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 9 Febrero 1960
    ...In re Honeyman's Estate, 98 N.J.Eq. 638, 129 A. 393 (Pregrog.1925) affirmed sub nom. Bugbee v. Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, 4 N.J.Misc. 99, 131 A. 924 (Sup.Ct.1926) affirmed 103 N.J.L. 173, 134 A. 915 (E. & A.1926), is not contrary to this result. In that case the d......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT