Chambe v. Durfee

• Decision Date: 17 April 1894
• Citation: 58 N.W. 661,100 Mich. 112
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CHAMBE et al. v. DURFEE, Judge.

58 N.W. 661

100 Mich. 112

CHAMBE et al. v. DURFEE, Judge.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 17, 1894

Petition by Frederick Chambe and Margaret Schneck, executors of the estate of Mary Suess, deceased, for a writ of prohibition to restrain Edgar O. Durfee, judge of probate of Wayne county Mich., from proceeding to determine the valuation of such estate for taxation. Writ granted.

Wells, Angell, Boynton & McMillan, for relators. A. A. Ellis, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

LONG J.

Relators are executors of the will of Mary Suess, deceased. The county treasurer applied to the probate judge to appoint appraisers of said estate to determine the valuation for taxation, under Act No. 205, Pub. Acts 1893. Relators answered the petition denying the jurisdiction of that court in the premises, on the ground that the act was unconstitutional. This objection in the answer was overruled. This proceeding is for a writ of prohibition against the probate judge restraining any proceedings under said act. The act is entitled "An act to provide for the taxation of certain transfers of property by gift, grant, inheritance devise, or bequest." It is quite unnecessary to set out the provisions of the act here, except in so far as they bear upon the question which we shall discuss. Section 20 of the act provides: "All taxes levied and collected under this act shall be paid into the treasury of the state for the use of the state, and shall be applicable to the expenses of the state government and to such other purposes as the legislature shall by law direct." Section 14, art. 14 of the constitution of this state, provides that "every law which imposes, continues or revives a tax shall distinctly state the tax and the object to which it is to be applied." Section 1, art. 14, provides that "all specific state taxes, except those received from the mining companies of the upper peninsula, shall be applied in paying the interest upon the primary school, university and other educational funds, and the interest and principal of the state debt, in the order herein recited until the extinguishment of the state debt other than the amounts due to educational funds when such specific taxes shall be added to and constitute a part of the primary school interest fund." It is contended by the relator that the tax provided by the act is one upon property, and not upon the transfers, and therefore void, because it contravenes section 11, art. 14, of the constitution, which provides that "the legislature shall provide a uniform rule of taxation, except on property paying specific taxes." The attorney general contends that it is a tax upon transfers, and not upon property, and therefore the act cannot be construed as coming within section 11, art. 14, of the constitution, providing a uniform rule of taxation, and concedes that, if it be regarded as a tax upon property, it would contravene that provision. Section 1 of the act provides: "After the passage of this act a tax shall be and hereby is imposed upon the transfer of any property real or personal of the value of five hundred dollars or over or of any interest therein or income therefrom in trust or otherwise to persons or corporations on real or personal property in the following cases." The section then specifies what transfers shall be made subject to the tax, which is at the rate of 5 per cent. of the market value. Section 2...