Miller v. Commonwealth
Decision Date | 04 January 1886 |
Citation | 111 Pa. 321,2 A. 492 |
Parties | Miller et al. Executors of Richey v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 10, 1885
Error to Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term, 1885, No. 225.
Debt by the Commonwealth against P. Harvey Miller and George D McGrew, executors of the last will of Daniel Richey deceased, to recover collateral inheritance tax alleged to be due on account of the provisions of the said will.
In the court below the following case stated was filed:
It is agreed by and between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by Philip Hoerr, Register of Wills, etc., of Allegheny County Pa., plaintiff, and George D. McGrew and P. H. Miller executors of David Richey, deceased, late of said county, defendant, that an amicable action of debt be entered in said court by plaintiff against defendants, and the following case is stated for the opinion of the court:
David Richey, a citizen of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, died July , 1879, having first made his last will and testament, dated April 8th, 1879, and duly registered in said county, which, in words and figures, is as follows:
The testator died unmarried and without issue, and all his estate descended to collaterals. The Register of Wills of Allegheny County appointed an appraiser under the provisions of the law relating to collateral inheritance taxes, to make appraisement of the estate of the testator subject to such tax.
Among the property of which the testator died siezed, and which formed a portion of the residuary estate devised to his executors, were certain lands in Virginia and Kentucky, of which the said appraiser made appraisement on April 12th, 1880, and made return as follows, viz:
Owing to claims made upon the estate as to the title to the two tracts of land in Virginia first described, viz: The tract known as the California property, and the tract known as Peter's mountain property, and advice of counsel that the collateral inheritance tax was not payable on the lands in Virginia and Kentucky, the estate of decedent has not been settled; and though the collateral inheritance taxes have been paid on the balance of the decedent's estate, the payment of it on the lands in Kentucky and Virginia was left for adjudication in the courts.
If the court should be of the opinion that the estate thus appraised is subject to collateral inheritance tax under the laws of Pennsylvania, then judgment to be entered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $ 2,225, with such interest as the court may adjudge to be due under the collateral inheritance laws, together with 5 per cent. attorney's commission and costs of suit.
If the court should be of the opinion that the said estate is not subject to such tax, then judgment to be entered in favor of defendant with costs.
Either party to have the right to a writ of error within 30 days after judgment.
Witness the hands of the said parties at Pittsburgh, this 25th day of September, 1885.
R. B. Petty, Attorney for Plaintiffs.
D. T. Watson, Attorney for Defendants.
The court held that appraised estate was subject to the collateral inheritance tax and accordingly entered judgment for the plaintiff for $ 2,225 with interest at the rate of six per cent., and attorney's commissions and costs.
The defendants took this writ assigning for error the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Land Title & Trust Co. v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, Inheritance Tax Division
... ... the rest, residue and remainder of my estate real and ... personal whatsoever, in the city of Philadelphia or ... commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or elsewhere, wheresoever ... situate, which I now own or which may belong to me at the ... time of my death I give, devise and ... provisions of the will and codicil above set forth? ... W. C ... Miller", of Charleston, for appellants ... J ... Fraser Lyon, of Columbia, for respondent ... MARION, ... \xC2" ... ...
-
West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. Miller
...wherever situated, into personalty, as of the date of his death. Dundas' Appeal, 64 Pa. 325; Roland v. Miller, 100 Pa. 47; Miller v. Com., 111 Pa. 321, 2 A. 492; In re Williamson's Estate, 153 Pa. 508, 26 246. The plaintiff's counsel, as I understand them, concede that the power of sale giv......
-
Gilbreath v. Cosgrove
... ... 600; Henderson v ... Henderson, 133 Pa. 399, 19 A. 424; Jones v ... Caldwell, 97 Pa. 42, 45; Marcum v. Hudnall, 14 ... Gratt. 369, 374; Miller v. Commonwealth, 111 Pa ... 321, 2 A. 492; Corrington, Ex Parte, 124 Ill. 363, 367; ... Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Brown Chan. Cas. 497; ... ...
-
In re Dull's Estate
... ... real estate: Hunt's App., 105 Pa. 128; Irwin v ... Patchen, 164 Pa. 51; Jones v. Caldwell, 97 Pa ... 42; Roland v. Miller, 100 Pa. 47; Lindley's ... App., 102 Pa. 235; Fahnestock v. Fahnestock, 152 Pa ... 56; Vanuxem's Est., 212 Pa. 315; Dalrymple's Est., ... 215 Pa ... chose in action. At the death of the testator, the realty eo ... instanti is converted and passes as personalty: Miller v ... Commonwealth, 111 Pa. 321; Mellon v. Reed, 123 ... Pa. 1; Bender v. Luckenbach, 162 Pa. 18; ... Horner's App., 56 Pa. 405; Evans's App., 63 Pa. 183; ... ...