In re Hickok's Estate

Citation78 Vt. 259,62 A. 724
PartiesIn re HICKOK'S ESTATE.
Decision Date26 January 1906
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont

Exceptions from Chittenden County Court; Munson, Judge.

In the matter of Julia F. Hickok's estate. On appeal from the probate court the case was heard on an agreed statement, and there was judgment pro forma that the legacies were subject to a collateral inheritance tax. The legatees excepted. Affirmed.

Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, WATSON, and TOWERS, JJ.

J. E. Cushman, Tax Com'r, for the State. W. L. Burnap, for the estate.

MUNSON, J. Number 46, p. 38, Acts 1896, entitled "An act to tax collateral inheritances," exempts from its operation property passing "to or for charitable, educational, or religious societies or institutions, the property of which is exempt by law from taxation." This exemption is invoked by institutions incorporated by, and located in, the states of Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and Illinois. The tax commissioner contends that foreign corporations are not within the exemption. It is a well-established general rule that exemptions from taxation are to be strictly construed, and that no claim of exemption can be sustained, unless within the express letter or necessary scope of the exempting clause. Ford v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 164 U. S. 663, 17 Sup. Ct. 230, 41 L. Ed. 390. The particular exemption in question is found in the statutes of other jurisdictions, and has often received the construction for which the commissioner contends. Matter of Prime, 136 N. Y. 347, 32 N. E. 1091, 18 L. R. A. 713; People ex rel. v. Western Seaman's Friend Society, 87 Ill. 246; Minot v. Winthrop, 162 Mass. 113, 38 N. E. 512, 26 L. R. A. 259. It is argued that the exemption is in recognition of the beneficent purpose of these institutions, and that, inasmuch as the purpose is common to them all, wherever located, the exemption should be held applicable to all. But we think, with the authorities above cited, that, in the absence of any language indicative of a different intent, the Legislature must be deemed to have made the exception for the benefit of its own institutions. It is suggested that the use of the word "law" instead of "statute" indicates an intention to include corporations outside our jurisdiction; but our statute is the same in this respect as those construed in the New York and Massachusetts cases above cited. It is true, as further suggested, that in the Matter of Prime, which was cited as an authority in Minot v. Winthrop, there were features peculiar to the New York statute which entered into the consideration of the subject and bore upon the conclusion reached; but we think that these cases may nevertheless be relied upon in support of the state's contention. It was said in Humphreys v. State, 70 Ohio St. 67, 70 N. E. 957, 65 L. R. A. 776, 101 Am. St Rep. 888, upon a review of the New York and other cases, that the exemption clause of this statute would have related only to their own institutions, even if the words "in the state" had been omitted.

But the main contention of the estate is based upon the phraseology of our Constitution, which declares, in effect, that every member of society is bound to contribute "his proportion" towards the expense of the protection which the state affords him. It is said that this excludes all methods of taxation that are not uniform, equal, and proportional, and that the law in question lacks the required qualities. The case of Curry v. Spencer, 61 N. H. 624, 60 Am. Rep. 337, decided In 1882, supports this position. The New Hampshire Constitution provides for the laying of "proporti...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Clark v. City of Burlington
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 19 Noviembre 1928
    ...was not intended to restrict the state to methods of taxation that operate equally upon all its inhabitants. In re Hickok's Estate, 78 Vt. 259, 265, 62 A. 724, 6 Ann. Cas. 578; State v. Clement Nat. Bank, 84 Vt. 167, 191, 78 A. 944, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 22. The* limitation imposed by our Consti......
  • Enochs v. State ex rel. Roberson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 8 Octubre 1923
    ...... the administrators of money admitted by the administrators to. be due the state as taxes on the decedent's estate is not. conclusive of the amount of the tax that is in fact due. thereon. . . 3. TAXATION. Legislature may provide for ascertainment ......
  • State v. Clement Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 16 Enero 1911
    ...which requires from every member of society a proportional contribution towards the expenses of government. It was held in Re Hickok's Estate, 78 Vt. 259, 62 Atl. 724, upon an examination of this provision, that an inheritance tax is not unconstitutional. The court considered that the claus......
  • Louisville Gas Electric Co v. Coleman
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 30 Abril 1928
    ...Furnell, 20 Mont. 299, 51 P. 267, 39 L. R. A. 170; State v. Alston, 94 Tenn. 674, 30 S. W. 750, 28 L. R. A. 178; In re Hickok's Estate, 78 Vt. 259, 62 A. 724, 6 Ann. Cas. 578. 3 Compare In re McKennan's Estate, 27 S. D. 136, 130 N. W. 33, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 620, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 745, susta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT