Malin v. County of Lamoure

• Decision Date: 14 February 1914
• Docket Number: 81912
• Citation: 145 N.W. 582,27 N.D. 140
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

145 N.W. 582

27 N.D. 140

A. B. MALIN and Maria E. Dobler, as Administrators of the Estate of Gottlieb J. Dobler, Deceased, v. COUNTY OF LAMOURE, State of North Dakota, a Municipal Corporation, State Tax Commission, Amicus Curiae Intervener

No. 81912

Supreme Court of North Dakota

February 14, 1914

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from the District court of LaMoure County, Coffey, J.

Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer.

Affirmed.

Walter H. Murfin, for appellant.

If a state may deny the privilege of succession, it follows that when it grants it, it may annex to the grant any condition which it supposes to be required by its interests or policy. The charge involved in this case amounts to an inheritance tax. Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U.S 283, 42 L.Ed. 1037, 18 S.Ct. 594.

No bill shall embrace more than one subject. N.D. Const. art. II. § 61; Re Magnes, 32 Colo. 527, 77 P. 853; Richard v. Stark County, 8 N.D. 392, 79 N.W. 863; State ex rel. Goodsill v. Woodmansee, 1 N.D. 246, 11 L.R.A. 420, 46 N.W. 970; Eaton v. Guarantee Co. 11 N.D. 79, 88 N.W. 1029.

The means and instrumentalities by which the purposes of an act are to be accomplished need not be expressed in its title. State v. Appelegarth, 81 Md. 293, 28 L.R.A. 812, 31 A. 961; People v. Parks, 58 Cal. 635; Fahey v. State, 27 Tex.App. 146, 11 Am. St. Rep. 182, 11 S.W. 108; O'Leary v. Cook County, 28 Ill. 538.

"Due process of law" means an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case, in which the citizen has the opportunity to be heard as to rights involved. 8 Cyc. 1082; Doyle's Petition (Re Gannon) 16 R. I. 537, 5 L.R.A. 359, 27 Am. St. Rep. 759, 18 A. 159; McGavock v. Omaha, 40 Neb. 64, 58 N.W. 543.

If this is an inheritance tax, then a personal notice and opportunity to be heard, or to resist, is not necessary, as in case of a tax on property. Union Trust Co. v. Wayne Probate Judge, 125 Mich. 487, 84 N.W. 1101; Hacker v. Howe, 72 Neb. 385, 100 N.W. 1127, 101 N.W. 255; Hostetter v. State, 26 Ohio C. C. 702; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232, 33 L.Ed. 892, 10 Sup. St. Rep. 533.

An inheritance tax graduated in proportion to the amount of the inheritance is not unconstitutional. Re Fox, 154 Mich. 5, 117 N.W. 558; Nunnemacher v. State, 129 Wis. 190, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 121, 108 N.W. 627, 9 Ann. Cas. 711; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 42 L.Ed. 1037, 18 S.Ct. 594; Humphreys v. State, 70 Ohio St. 67, 65 L.R.A. 776, 101 Am. St. Rep. 888, 70 N.E. 957, 1 Ann. Cas. 233; Re Campbell, 143 Cal. 623, 77 P. 674; Nettleton's Appeal, 76 Conn. 235, 56 A. 565; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 44 L.Ed. 969, 20 S.Ct. 747; Re McPherson, 104 N.Y. 306, 58 Am. Rep. 502, 10 N.E. 685.

It is only necessary that equal protection is given to all coming under each classification, in such a law. State ex rel. Taylor v. Guilbert, 70 Ohio St. 229, 71 N.E. 636, 1 Ann. Cas. 25; Peacock v. Pratt, 58 C. C. A. 48, 121 F. 773; Billings v. Illinois, 188 U.S. 97, 47 L.Ed. 400, 23 S.Ct. 272; Re Blackstone, 171 N.Y. 682, 64 N.E. 1118; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Davis, 132 F. 629; Nettleton's Appeal, 76 Conn. 235, 56 A. 565; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232, 33 L.Ed. 892, 10 S.Ct. 533.

The law in question is neither local nor special in its application. Gilson v. Rush County, 128 Ind. 65, 11 L.R.A. 835, 27 N.E. 235; Burnham v. Webster, 5 Mass. 268; Crawford v. Linn County, 11 Ore. 482, 5 P. 738; Young v. Bank of Alexandria, 4 Cranch, 384, 2 L.Ed. 655; State ex rel. Bell v. Frazier, 36 Ore. 178, 59 P. 5.

Succession to an inheritance may be taxed as a privilege, notwithstanding the property of the estate is taxed. Re Magnes, 32 Colo. 527, 77 P. 853; State v. Alston, 94 Tenn. 674, 28 L.R.A. 178, 30 S.W. 750; West v. Phillips, 162 Mass. 113, 26 L.R.A. 259, 38 N.E. 512; State ex rel. Taylor v. Guilbert, 70 Ohio St. 229, 71 N.E. 636, 1 Ann. Cas. 25; Kochersperger v. Drake, 167 Ill. 122, 41 L.R.A. 446, 47 N.E. 321; Billings v. People, 189 Ill. 472, 59 L.R.A. 807, 59 N.E. 798, affirmed in 188 U.S. 97, 47 L.Ed. 400, 23 S.Ct. 272; Cooley, Taxn. pp. 8, 30, 584.

Taxes on business or on parties commencing suits, or special assessments, are not taxes on property. Newby v. Platte County, 25 Mo. 258; Aachen & M. F. Ins. Co. v. Omaha, 72 Neb. 518, 101 N.W. 3; Cobb v. Durham County, 122 N.C. 307, 30 S.E. 338; State ex rel. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Lancaster County, 4 Neb. 537, 19 Am. Rep. 641.

If these fees are taxes at all, they are inheritance taxes, and the law is valid. 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 433, 435; Clymer v. Com. 52 Pa. 187; Strode v. Com. 52 Pa. 181; Re Swift, 137 N.Y. 77, 18 L.R.A. 709, 32 N.E. 1096.

The possibility of a condition arising involving inequality among those who may feel the ultimate stress of the duty imposed, furnishes no ground for attack for nonuniformity. Hopkins's Appeal, 77 Conn. 644, 60 A. 657; Re Morris, 138 N.C. 259, 50 S.E. 682; Dixon v. Ricketts, 26 Utah 215, 72 P. 947; Nunnemacher v. State, 129 Wis. 190, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 121, 108 N.W. 627, 9 Ann. Cas. 711; Gelsthorpe v. Furnell, 20 Mont. 299, 39 L.R.A. 170, 51 P. 267.

The right of the government to provide means and methods of taxation, as to classes or objects, is unquestioned. Re Keeney, 194 N.Y. 281, 87 N.E. 428; State ex rel. Foot v. Bazille, 97 Minn. 11, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 732, 106 N.W. 93, 7 Ann. Cas. 1056; Kochersperger v. Drake, 167 Ill. 122, 41 L.R.A. 446, 47 N.E. 321; Re Watson, 17 S.D. 486, 97 N.W. 463, 2 Ann. Cas. 321; Union Trust Co. v. Wayne Probate Judge, 125 Mich. 487, 84 N.W. 1101; State v. Hamlin, 86 Me. 495, 25 L.R.A. 632, 41 Am. St. Rep. 569, 30 A. 76.

The legislature may tax privileges, discriminate between relatives, and grant exemptions, without violating the rule requiring uniformity. 2 Woerner, Am. Law of Administration, 691a; Re Magnes, 32 Colo. 527, 77 P. 853.

Legacy and inheritance taxes have been in many states, and while of the assailed, have been upheld. Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 42 L.Ed. 1037, 18 S.Ct. 594; Re McPherson, 104 N.Y. 306, 58 Am. Rep. 502, 10 N.E. 685.

Davis & Warren, for respondent.

Is § 2589, revised codes of 1905, as amended by chapter 119 of the Laws of 1909, constitutional? This is the only question here involved. The respondents contend that the so-called fee is a property tax. 37 Cyc. 713; Fatjo v. Pfister, 117 Cal. 83, 48 P. 1012; Cook County v. Fairbank, 222 Ill. 578, 78 N.E. 895; State ex rel. Davidson v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 232, 2 L.R.A. 701, 41 N.W. 948; State ex rel. Nettleton v. Case, 37 Wash. 177, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 152, 109 Am. St. Rep. 874, 81 P. 554; State ex rel. Sanderson v. Mann, 76 Wis. 469, 45 N.W. 526, 46 N.W. 51.

(Brief presented and filed with the consent of the court, on behalf of appellant county, by L. E. Birdzell and Geo. E. Wallace, attorneys and members of the North Dakota tax commission, as Amici Curiae.)

That part of the law in question, requiring an initial fee of $ 5 to be paid to the county court upon filing a petition for the probate of an estate is valid, and not in conflict with any provision of our Constitution. State ex rel. Davidson v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 232, 2 L.R.A. 701, 41 N.W. 948; Fatjo v. Pfister, 117 Cal. 83, 48 P. 1012; State ex rel. Nettleton v. Case, 39 Wash. 177, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 152, 109 Am. St. Rep. 874, 81 P. 554; State ex rel. Sanderson v. Mann, 76 Wis. 469, 45 N.W. 526, 46 N.W. 51; Lewis v. San Francisco, 2 Cal.App. 112, 82 P. 1106; Trower v. San Francisco, 152 Cal. 479, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 183, 92 P. 1025; Cook County v. Fairbank, 222 Ill. 578, 78 N.E. 895; Mearkle v. Hennepin County, 44 Minn. 546, 47 N.W. 165.

An act may be valid in part, and the court have the right to separate, and to so declare, if that part which remains is complete and enforceable in itself. Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 24; State v. Klectzen, 8 N.D. 286, 78 N.W. 984, 11 Am. Crim. Rep. 324; Hirschfeld v. McCullagh, 64 Ore. 502, 127 P. 541, 130 P. 1131; State ex rel. Minces v. Schoenig, 72 Minn. 528, 75 N.W. 711; Morrow v. Wipf, 22 S.D. 152, 115 N.W. 1121; Exchange Bank v. Hines, 3 Ohio St. 1; State v. Estabrook, 3 Nev. 173; Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379.

OPINION

Statement

BRUCE J.

The plaintiffs herein as administrators of the estate of Gottlieb J. Dobler, deceased, paid under protest to the county treasurer of LaMoure county the statutory probate fees amounting in the case to $ 335, and prescribed by § 2589, Rev. Codes 1905, as amended by chapter 119 of the Laws of 1909, and thereafter brought this action in the district court of LaMoure county to recover the sum so paid, alleging in their complaint that the act under which the same was paid was unconstitutional. A demurrer was interposed to the complain and overruled. From the order overruling this demurrer this appeal is taken. Chapter 119 of the Laws of 1909 reads as follows: An Act to Amend § 2589 of the Revised Codes of 1905, Relating to the Fees of County Court. Be it enacted by the legislative assembly of the state of North Dakota: § 1. Amendment Section 2589 of the Revised Codes of 1905 of the state of North Dakota is hereby amended to read as follows: § 2589. County to be Reimbursed. How. For the purpose of reimbursing the county for the salaries provided in the foregoing sections to be paid the judges of county courts, each petitioner for letters testamentary, or administration or guardianship, before filing the same in the county court, shall pay or cause to be paid into the county treasury, for the use and benefit of the county in whose county court proceedings are to be instituted to settle the estate of a deceased person or for the appointment of a guardian, the sum of five dollars, and when the value of said estate has been ascertained by the court, through the inventory and...