Henry v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 February 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 162,162 |
| Citation | 64 L.Ed. 322,251 U.S. 393,40 S.Ct. 185 |
| Parties | HENRY v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Simon Lyon and R. B. H. Lyon, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Solicitor General Alex. C. King, of Atlanta, Ga., for the United States.
This is a suit to recover taxes paid under the Spanish War Revenue Act of June 13, 1898, c. 448, §§ 29, 30, 30 Stat. 448, 464, 465, repealed by the Act of April 12, 1902, c. 500, § 7, 32 Stat. 96, 97, the repeal to take effect on July 1, 1902. By the Act of June 27, 1902, c. 1160, § 3, 32 Stat. 406, the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to refund taxes upon legacies collected upon contingent beneficial interests that should not have become vested before July 1, 1902, and this claim is made under the last mentioned act. The claim was held by the Court of Claims to be barred by the Statute of Limitations. In view of the decision in Sage v. United States, 256 U. S. 33, 39 Sup. Ct. 415, 63 L. Ed. 828, it is admitted by the Government that the judgment cannot be sustained on that ground, and therefore that matter need not be discussed, but it is contended that the judgment was right because the legacies taxed had become vested before July 1, 1902. Whether they had become vested within the meaning of the refunding act is the only question in the case.
The facts are these: Arthur Hendricks died domiciled in New York on March 5, 1902, and his will was proved on March 17, 1902. The claimant was executor and trustee under the will. By that instrument the sum of $50,000 was left to the claimant in trust for Florence Lester for life, the remainder to go to the residue. The residue was left to the testator's five sisters. On July 1, 1902, the time for proving claims against the estate had not expired, but before that date the executor, having correctly estimated that a large sum would be left after all debts, paid over $135,780 to the five sisters in equal shares and 'established the trust fund' for Florence Lester, that is, as we understand the finding, transferred the sum of $50,000 to his separate account as trustee. The taxes in question were levied on these two amounts.
There is no doubt that if the claimant had retained the funds in his hands, as he had a legal right to do, the interest of the legatees would not have been vested in possession within the meaning of the statute, whatever the probabilities and however solvent the estate. United States v. Jones, 236 U. S. 106, 35 Sup. Ct. 261, 59 L. Ed. 488, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 316; McCoach v. Pratt, 236 U. S. 562, 35 Sup. Ct. 421, 59 L. Ed. 720. He contends that the same is true if he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kiviti v. Pompeo
...L.Ed.2d 528 (1973) ("[T]he law uses familiar legal expressions in their familiar legal sense." (quoting Henry v. United States , 251 U.S. 393, 395, 40 S.Ct. 185, 64 L.Ed. 322 (1920) )).Second, even under the State Department's approach, the term "born ... of" is susceptible to a range of in......
-
In re LTV Steel Co., Inc., No. 00-43866.
...(N.D.Ill. 1987). Moreover, "the law uses familiar legal expressions in their familiar legal sense." Henry v. United States, 251 U.S. 393, 395, 40 S.Ct. 185, 186, 64 L.Ed. 322 (1920); Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605, 609, 93 S.Ct. 1151, 1154, 35 L.Ed.2d 528 (1973). If Congress intends......
-
Coolidge v. Long 1930
...and cases cited. And see United States v. Fidelity Trust Co., 222 U. S. 158, 32 S. Ct. 59, 56 L. Ed. 137; Henry v. United States, 251 U. S. 393, 40 S. Ct. 185, 64 L. Ed. 322. The provision for the payment of income to the settlors during their lives did not operate to postpone the vesting i......
-
U.S. v. McGoff
...69 L.Ed.2d 672 (1981). Thus, a court is to interpret such legal terms in their "familiar legal sense," Henry v. United States, 251 U.S. 393, 395, 40 S.Ct. 185, 186, 64 L.Ed. 322 (1920), unless Congress has provided a "contrary direction." Morissette, 342 U.S. at 263, 72 S.Ct. at 250. Here, ......
-
The Supreme Court's Interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's Anti-retaliation Provision in Kasten v. Saint- Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation: Putting Policy Over Plain Language?
...at 1337 (Scalia, J., dissenting).367. Id. at 1337-38.368. Id.369. Id.370. Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. United States, 251 U.S. 393, 395 (1920)). Justice Scalia also made a point of this while questioning the Respondent's counsel during oral argument. Oral Argument, supra n......
-
Unborn children as constitutional persons.
...315 U.S. 657, 660 (1942); Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 72 n.3 (1938); Shukert v. Allen, 273 U.S. 545, 547(1927); Henry v. U. S., 251 U.S. 393, 395 (1920); Fitchie v. Brown, 211 U.S. 321, 333 (1908); BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1300 (4th ed. 1951).; J. CRIBBET & C. JOHNSON, CASES AND......