In re Majot's Estate

• Citation: 92 N.E. 402,199 N.Y. 29
• Parties: In re MAJOT'S ESTATE.
• Decision Date: 07 June 1910
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

199 N.Y. 29

92 N.E. 402

In re MAJOT'S ESTATE.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 7, 1910.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

In the matter of the appraisal under the transfer tax law of the property of Paul Auguste Eleonore Majot, deceased. From an order of the Appellate Division (135 App. Div. 409,119 N. Y. Supp. 888) reversing the surrogate's decree exempting one-half of the estate from the transfer tax, the administratrix appeals. Affirmed.

Paul Fuller, for appellant.

Millard H. Ellison, for respondent.

HAIGHT, J.

Paul Auguste Eleonore Majot was a citizen and resident of France and as such married Anne Picat on the 30th day of June, 1885, at Paris, France. Shortly after such marriage they emigrated to this state and became residents thereof, and subsequently acquired both real and personal property in this state, of which Paul Auguste Eleonore Majot died seised and possessed on the 7th day of December, 1907. No express antenuptial contract existed between them. He left no will and his widow has been duly appointed administratrix of his estate.

Under the French Code a wife is given a community interest in whatever property, real or personal, her husband had at the time of the marriage and such as he shall acquire thereafter, and that by reason thereof it is now claimed on behalf of the widow of the decedent that no transfer tax can be imposed under our statute as to her half interest in the estate, for the reason that there has been no transfer upon his death and that she merely enters into possession of her community interest as it previously existed. Ordinarily, the law of the place of the domicile of the owner controls with reference to the distribution of his personal property upon his decease, and the law of the place in which his real estate is situate controls with reference to its descent; and, in the absence of an express antenuptial contract otherwise providing, the foregoing rule prevails with reference to the disposition of property of married people upon the death of either. If two or more persons should each be the owner of an undivided interest in a specific article of personal property and they should remove to this state, bringing such property with them, their ownership therein would remain unchanged by our law, and, in case of the death of either, the undivided shares of the others would remain unaffected. As to whether the community interest of a wife in the property of her husband under the French law is such as to constitute her the present and continuing owner during their married life of an undivided one-half interest in his personal property acquired during his residence in France we do not now deem it necessary to determine; for, as we understand, all of the decedent's property, both real and personal, of which he died seised or possessed, was acquired after the removal of himself and wife to this state. While it must be conceded that some conflict exists in the decisions of courts in foreign jurisdictions, we have no hesitancy in reaching the conclusion that, as to the property acquired by the decedent here during his residence with his wife in this state, it is controlled by our laws and upon his death it is transferred within the meaning of our tax laws.

In Rodgers on Domestic Relations, § 316, it is said: ‘In a sense the laws of those states where the rule of community property is in force have no extraterritorial effect; that is, the rights, privileges, and liabilities incident to the law of this species of property are for those only who marry within the state where the law is in force, or come into it after marriage in good faith, for the purpose of taking up their abode and yielding fealty to its laws. If the marriage takes place in another state, and the parties never live in the state where the law of community property is recognized, the property rights of the parties must be governed by the laws of the state of their domicile, though they may have property in the state where the rule of community is in force. It is held in Texas, however, that the rights of the parties, so far as realty situated within that state is concerned, will be governed by the rule of community property in force in that state, though their residence and domicile are in a state where such laws are not recognized. It is held in Louisiana that where parties are married in France, by the laws of which country there is no community of acquêts and gains, and thereafter move to Louisiana, where such laws are effective, with the bona fide intention of taking up their abode there, the laws of that state will then govern their rights of property within its bounds. And this ruling is no doubt correct.’

In Gale v. Davis, 4 Mart. O. S. (La.) 645, 649, the court says: ‘It seems now to be a settled principle that, when a married couple emigrate from the country where the marriage was contracted into another the laws of which are different, the property which they acquired in the place to which they have removed is governed by the laws of that place.’

Story in his work On Conflict of Laws (8th Ed.), at page 267, after referring to many decisions upon the subject in this and other countries, and especially the Louisiana cases, proceeds to give his opinion as to the law of the United States with reference to the question under consideration, as...