Greves v. Shaw

• Decision Date: 07 April 1899
• Citation: Greves v. Shaw, 173 Mass. 205, 53 N. E. 372 (Mass. 1899)
• Parties: GREVES et al. v. SHAW, State Treasurer, et al.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

173 Mass. 205

53 N.E. 372

GREVES et al. v. SHAW, State Treasurer, et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

April 7, 1899

COUNSEL

J.F. Jackson and Oliver Prescott, Jr., for appellants.

H.M Knowlton, Atty. Gen., and A.W. De Goosh, Asst. Atty. Gen for the Commonwealth.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The language of St.1891, c. 425, § 1, in regard to the taxation of the succession to property after the death of the former owner, is exceedingly broad and sweeping. Subject to conditions named, the tax is imposed on "all property within the jurisdiction of the commonwealth and any interest therein, whether belonging to inhabitants of the commonwealth or not, and whether tangible or intangible." There can be no doubt that stock in corporations organized under the laws of this commonwealth, and of national banking corporations located in this state, is property within the jurisdiction of the commonwealth, within the meaning of this statute. Callahan v. Woodbridge, 171 Mass. 595, 51 N.E. 176; In re Bronson's Estate, 150 N.Y. 1, 44 N.E. 707; Tappan v. Bank, 19 Wall. 490-500; Bank v. Smith, 65 Ill. 44-55; Railroad Co. v. Morrow, 87 Tenn. 406-427, 11 S.W. 348. Such a corporation, being in a sense a citizen of this state, and having an abiding place here akin to the domicile of a natural person, is subject to the jurisdiction of the commonwealth, and is in fact within the commonwealth. The stockholders are the proprietors of the corporation, which is itself the proprietor of the property owned and used for the ultimate benefit of the stockholders. While the corporation has a full and complete legal title to the corporate property, its ownership is in a sense fiduciary; for, on winding up its affairs, the surplus after the payment of debts must be divided among the stockholders. Fisher v. Bank, 5 Gray, 373-377; Field v. Pierce, 102 Mass. 253-261; Graham v. Railroad Co., 102 U.S. 148, 160, 161; Hollins v. Iron Co., 150 U.S. 371-383, 14 Sup.Ct. 127. National banking corporations are expressly given a local status in the state where they are established. Rev.St.U.S. §§ 5134, 5190, 5219. By the terms of the statute the succession to property belonging to nonresidents is subject to a tax, like that of residents of the commonwealth. That the certificates in the present case were in the state of New York at the time of the death of the testatrix is immaterial.

The only ground on which it is strongly contended that the stocks in question are exempt from taxation is that they were transferred by the executor, under the authority of his appointment in the state of New York, before he was appointed in this commonwealth. It is argued by the appellant that, although a foreign executor or administrator cannot be recognized by the courts of this commonwealth in any suit or proceeding to collect assets under his foreign appointment, he has a title, by virtue of it, such that payments and deliveries of property in this commonwealth may properly be made to him. Hutchins v. Bank, 12 Metc. (Mass.) 421; Martin v. Gage, 147 Mass. 204, 17 N.E. 310; Anthony v. Anthony, 161 Mass. 343, 37 N.E. 386; Parsons v. Lyman, 20 N.Y. 103; Trecothick v. Austin, 4 Mason, 16, Fed.Cas. No. 14,164; Luce v. Railroad Co., 63 N.H. 558, 3 A. 618; Marcy v. Marcy, 32 Conn. 308. This doctrine is subject, however, to the rule that if, in the interests of local creditors, ancillary administration is taken out, the title of the foreign administrator to the property then in the state is subordinate to the title of the ancillary administrator, who specially represents local rights under the authority of local laws.

It is contended that if, under his foreign appointment, the original executor obtains possession of property in this commonwealth, it should be treated, under this statute, as if it had never been within our jurisdiction, and be free from taxation, inasmuch as it does not come into the hands of the local administrator or executor. But we are of opinion that this contention is not well founded. The provisions of the statute subjecting property described in it to taxation are absolute. The statute assumes that this property will be administered by an...