In re Dilworth's Estate
Decision Date | 05 January 1914 |
Docket Number | 165 |
Parties | Dilworth's Estate |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 3, 1913 [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal, No. 165, Oct. T., 1913, by Elizabeth Louise Dilworth from decree of O.C. Allegheny Co., March T., 1913, No. 156, dismissing exceptions to adjudication in the Estate of Charles R. Dilworth, deceased. Affirmed.
Exceptions to adjudication.
HAWKINS, P.J., filed the following opinion:
2. That option has been exercised in a legal manner.
The material facts are these:
Mr. Dilworth died August 29, 1911, domiciled in New York, leaving a will dated June 22, 1907, which was duly probated there and here, and by which after the usual preliminaries he provided as follows:
Mrs. Dilworth was made executrix of the will.
Lawrence Dilworth, a brother, and Louise D. Beggs, sister, died before Charles R. Dilworth, leaving issue, several of whom were minors and for whom the Fidelity Title & Trust Company and the Safe Deposit & Trust Company were respectively appointed guardians; and Joseph R. Dilworth, brother, and Elizabeth D. Beggs, sister, survived. On October 14, 1911, petitions were presented on behalf of the guardians above mentioned which after reciting the provisions of Mr. Dilworth's will quoted and the need of authority as ancillary guardians "in order to accept the option aforesaid" for the benefit of their wards, asked leave to apply to the surrogate of New York for such appointment, whereupon leave was granted and bond given in accordance with the law of New York; and the appointment made. By paper duly signed and dated December 9, 1911, all parties interested including the minors by their guardians respectively elected to accept Mr. Dilworth's stock in the partnership of Dilworth, Porter & Company, Limited, in accordance with the terms of his will; and this election was duly served on Mrs. Dilworth December 20, 1911. On the 26th day of February following eight notes signed by these parties including the guardians for their proportionate shares respectively of the consideration made payable to Mrs. Dilworth individually and successively eight similar notes made payable to her as executrix, were tendered and refused. In the meantime, December 1, 1911, a bill in equity was filed on behalf of Mrs. Dilworth in the Court of Common Pleas of this county against these claims in which among other things,
and asks that they be restrained from interfering in any manner with her said ownership. This bill was afterwards "withdrawn" for lack of jurisdiction.
Assuming the legality of the option given by Mr. Dilworth, it is objected that the notes tendered by the guardians were without authority and consequently without value; and the guardians, while denying the soundness of this objection, expressed their willingness to pay their shares in cash.
If authority in the guardians to accept the stock as provided by the will was lacking, this court has now no hesitation in ratifying their action. Acceptance is clearly advantageous to their wards. The firm of Dilworth, Porter & Company, Limited, is in prosperous condition. The book value of its stock is $138.00 per share, being $87.22 in excess of testator's estimate. The appraisement of Mr. Dilworth's share made as a basis for the assessment of collateral inheritance tax was $499,110.00, less purchase price as per will, $200,000.
It is admitted that all decedent's debts have been paid, there is in the hands of the executrix upwards of $40,000 assets undistributed, and in the hands of the ancillary administrator as shown by the present account, a balance of $621,362.24.
The statement of collateral inheritance tax is as follows:
Pending determination of question of stock in issue.
Profits on the stock from Dilworth's death to Jan. 1, 1913, amounted to $58,950.00.
Mrs. Dilworth testified that she had been advised by her domicillary counsel that she would be liable for a transfer tax on the stock under a New York statute; but no other proof was offered at the audit, of the existence of such a statute, or of any claim made on behalf of that state for such a tax although this court called local counsel's attention to the need of his proof; and it was objected that even if such proof had been made the local claimants would not be liable and it was suggested the case fell within the principal of Small's Estate, 151 Pa. 1.
It is a mistake to say that Mr. Dilworth gave his wife an absolute estate in the third paragraph of his will. The gift was made expressly "subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth"; and then immediately follow the "terms and conditions" of the fourth paragraph which are the only terms and conditions to which the testator could have had reference. It is conceded that the purpose plainly manifested in...
To continue reading
Request your trial