In re Rothschild's Estate

• Citation: 63 A. 615
• Parties: In re ROTHSCHILD'S ESTATE.
• Decision Date: 24 April 1906
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

63 A. 615

In re ROTHSCHILD'S ESTATE.

Prerogative Court of New Jersey.

April 24, 1906.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Orphans' Court, Monmouth County.

In the matter of the collateral inheritance tax on the estate of Simon Rothschild, deceased. From an order affirming the appraisal, a legatee appeals. Affirmed.

John M. Enright, for appellant. Edward D. Duffield, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

MAGIE, Ordinary. This is an appeal from an order of the orphans' court of Monmouth county, affirming the appraisal and assessment of the surrogate of that county in respect to certain legacies given by the will of Simon Rothschild, deceased, a resident of that county, under the provisions of the act entitled "An act to tax intestate's estates, gifts, legacies, devises and collateral inheritances in certain cases," approved May 15, 1894. P. L. 1894, p. 318. No objection has been opposed to the jurisdiction of this court to review the order of the orphans' court, and such orders have been heretofore reviewed on appeal. Alfred University v. Hancock (N. J. Prerog.) 46 Atl. 178; Hoyt v. Hancock, 65 N. J. Eq. 688, 55 Atl. 1004; In re Vineland Historical Society, 66 N. J. Eq. 291, 56 Atl. 1039. The assessments complained of relate to impositions of the tax in respect to various legacies given by said will, and appellant's counsel properly admits that the legatees affected thereby may be divided into three classes.

One class of such legatees consists of corporations to whom legacies of various amounts are bequeathed, and which, by the stipulation of counsel presented to the orphans' court, appear to be charitable institutions which would be the subject of the exemptions specified in section 1 of the collateral inheritance tax law, if they were corporations obtaining their corporate existence and functions under the laws of this state. But it is conceded that each one of them is a corporation of the state of New York, and not of this state. They therefore fall within the doctrine declared in this court in Alfred University v. Hancock, 46 Atl. 178, which construed the exemption in question as applicable only to charitable institutions created by our laws. The argument of appellant's counsel is, in this respect, directed to questioning the propriety of that decision. Every court may, doubtless, review and overrule its decisions in previous cases. No decision should be overruled except upon the clearest establishment of error, and when the overruling may not do serious, wrong. But the decision in the case referred to, was made about 10 years ago. Assessments have, doubtless, since been made upon its doctrine. It ought not to be now overruled except on the clearest grounds. The decision follows pertinent decisions in other states under similar laws, and I find no reason to question its entire accuracy. If erroneous, it must be so pronounced in a reviewing court. One of this group, the "Hebrew Benevolent & Orphan Asylum," was the legatee, under testator's will, of four of its own debenture bonds, which had been subscribed for and which had been held by...