Coffin v. Kelly
| Decision Date | 27 September 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 8.,8. |
| Citation | 133 N.J.L. 252,44 A.2d 29 |
| Parties | COFFIN v. KELLY, State Tax Com'r. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Proceeding in the matter of the transfer inheritance tax in the estate of Harriet D. Coffin, deceased. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 131 N.J.L. 241, 36 A.2d 11, affirming a decree of the Prerogative Court, 133 N.J.Eq. 188, 31 A.2d 186, affirming an assessment by William D. Kelly, State Tax Commissioner, C. W. Floyd Coffin, sole surviving executor of the last will of Harriet D. Coffin, deceased, appeals.
Affirmed.
Francis V. D. Lloyd and Morrison, Lloyd & Morrison, all of Hackensack, for prosecutor-appellant.
Walter D. Van Riper, Atty. Gen., and William A. Moore, of Trenton, for defendant-respondent.
The judgment will be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Chief Justice Brogan. That opinion appears to adopt the reasoning of the opinion in the Prerogative Court, 133 N.J.Eq. 188, 31 A.2d 186, as to the effect of the probable continuance of the period of enjoyment under the deeds of trust beyond the normal expectancy of life of the donor. We are left in some doubt as to whether the Vice Ordinary regarded the creation of a trust to remain effective for a period beyond the probable duration of the life of the donor as creating a legal presumption that the transfer was made in contemplation of death. While the provisions of the trust in that and every other respect were a part of the body of proof from which the court was authorized to, and did, find the fact regarding the donor's intention, the likelihood of continued enjoyment by the beneficiaries of the donor's gifts for a period beyond the normal expectancy of life of the donor did not as a matter of law establish the transactions as transfers made in contemplation of death. It is important to distinguish between purely factual findings and findings that involve the applications of legal presumptions or other forms of legal principles. The practical bearing is that in such matters this court accepts without review a finding of fact made by the Supreme Court where there is evidence to sustain it, Dommerich v. Kelly, 132 N.J.L. 141, 39 A.2d 30, but a finding of law, or an application of a legal principle to a finding of fact, is, of course, reviewable by us. We understand that the basis of determination by both the Prerogative Court and the Supreme Court was a strict finding of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Landano
...whether defendant sustained his burden of proof is not entitled to the same deference as his factual findings. Coffin v. Kelly, 133 N.J.L. 252, 44 A.2d 29 (E. & A. 1945).11 Of course, the problem is that the official report which was disclosed to defendant's trial attorney merely indicated ......
-
Lichtenstein's Estate, In re
...the transfer a substitute for testamentary disposition and therefore in contemplation of death. This was settled in Coffin v. Kelly, 133 N.J.L. 252, 44 A.2d 29 (E. & A.1945), where the court '* * * We are left in some doubt as to whether the Vice Ordinary regarded the creation of a trust to......
-
Montclair Trust Co. v. Zink
...132 N.J.L. 141, 39 A.2d 30. In Coffin v. Kelly, 133 N.J.Eq. 188, 31 A.2d 186, affirmed 131 N.J.L. 241, 36 A.2d 11, affirmed 133 N.J.L. 252, 44 A.2d 29, I ventured to define in general a motive to be a consideration which determines choice and becomes an incentive to undertake the accomplish......
-
Avery v. Walsh.
...Voorhees v. Kelly, supra; Coffin v. Kelly, 133 N.J.Eq. 188, 31 A.2d 186, affirmed 131 N.J.L. 241, 36 A.2d 11, further affirmed 133 N.J.L. 252, 44 A.2d 29. If the transfer is made beyond the two-year period, the burden devolves upon the taxing authorities to adequately establish that contemp......