Oakman v. Small

Citation282 Ill. 360,118 N.E. 775
Decision Date20 February 1918
Docket NumberNo. 11854.,11854.
PartiesOAKMAN et al. v. SMALL, State Treasurer, et al.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Cook County Court; John H. Williams, Judge.

Petition by Walter G. Oakman and others against Len Small, State Treasurer, and others, praying the vacation of an order fixing and assessing an inheritance tax. From an order striking the petition from the files, petitioners appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.Stetson, Jennings & Russell and Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, all of New York City, and Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey, of Chicago (Mitchell D. Follansbee and Fred Barth, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty.

Gen., and Le Roy Millner, of Chicago (Henry F. Hawkins, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Walter G. Oakman, Samuel Untermyer, the Guaranty Trust Company, and the Andrew Freedman Home filed in the county court of Cook county their petition praying the court to vacate and set aside an order fixing and assessing an inheritance tax upon shares of capital stock of nonresident corporations passing by the will of Andrew Freedman,deceased, to nonresidents of the state. Len Small, treasurer of the state of Illinois, the county treasurer of Cook county, the Attorney General and the inheritance tax attorney, were made defendants, and on their motion the court struck from the files the petition, and denied the relief prayed for, and the petitioners appealed.

The facts set forth in the petition, which were to be taken as true for the purposes of the motion to strike the petition from the files, are as follows: Andrew Freedman died on December 4, 1915, leaving a will, which was probated in the surrogate's court of New York, whereby Walter G. Oakman, Samuel Untermyer, and the Guaranty Trust Company were appointed executors and trustees, Elizabeth Freedman, mother of the testator, was given a life estate in one-fourth of the income of the residuary estate, Isabel Freedman, a sister of the testator, was given a similar interest, and the Andrew Freedman Home took the remainder, none of whom were residents of this state. On April 22, 1916, the county judge of Cook county appointed an appraiser to appraise the property passing by the will on which an inheritance tax might be due this state. The appraiser reported that there passed by the will 100 shares of the preferred 7 per cent. stock of the Moline Plow Company, a corporation of this state, of the par value of $100 per share, with a valuation of $9,600; also a great many shares of corporations of other states having property in this state, with proportionate values of such property at an aggregate of $48,241.72. On this appraisement he reported an inheritance tax against the Andrew Freedman Home amounting to $2,123.95 on the transfer of the shares of stock under the will. On May 24, 1916, the county judge entered an order assessing the tax at the rate of 5 per cent., amounting to $2,123.95, on the shares of stock, all of which, except the shares of stock of the Moline Plow Company, were of stock of foreign corporations passing to nonresidents of this state. The tax was paid by the executors. The petition alleged that the order imposing the inheritance tax, so far as it was assessed upon the capital stock of foreign corporations owned by the nonresident testator at the time of his death and passing by his will to nonresidents, was null and void for want of jurisdiction in the county court.

If the court had jurisdiction to make any order at all concerning the subject-matter, its judgment, although erroneous, which it unquestionably was (People v. Griffith, 245 Ill. 532, 92 N. E. 313;People v. Dennett, 276 Ill. 43, 114 N. E. 493), could not be collaterally attacked, and could only be set aside by a direct proceeding; but if the court was without jurisdiction, the judgment was a nullity, and without any effect, and can be questioned at any time or place. If a court assumes to act where it has no jurisdiction, its decisions will be utterly void. Kenney v. Greer, 13 Ill. 432, 54 Am. Dec. 439;7 R. C. L. 1031. The question to be decided, therefore, is whether the county court had any jurisdiction to adjudicate concerning the transfer by the will of Andrew Freedman of property not in this state, which passed by the will, not by virtue of any law of this state, to persons who were nonresidents, which means the power to hear and determine concerning the subject-matter. Franklin Union No. 4 v. People, 220 Ill. 355, 77 N. E. 176,4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1001, 110 Am. St. Rep. 248.

Jurisdiction in controversies between litigants includes jurisdiction of the person and of the subject-matter, and jurisdiction of the subject-matter means jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs, and it is always conferred by law. It does not mean jurisdiction of the particular case, which must be acquired by some method of bringing the case before the court for adjudication. O'Brien v. People, 216 Ill. 354, 75 N. E. 108,108 Am. St. Rep. 219,3 Ann. Cas. 966. Jurisdiction of the person is obtained by the process prescribed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Enochs v. State ex rel. Roberson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1923
    ... ... "6 ... Complainants charge that under the law the defendants have ... paid only a small portion of the tax lawfully due. The ... defendants are personally liable and the state is entitled to ... recover the full amount ... and Eng. Ann ... Cas. 1913 D, 514, L. R. A. 1915 D, 450; Northern Trust ... Co. v. Buck & Rainor, 263 Ill. 222, 104 N.E. 1114; ... Oakman v. Small, 282 Ill. 360, 118 N.E. 775 ... InDIANA--Statute ... passed in 1913 and amended first in 1915 and again in 1921 ... Conway v ... ...
  • R.I. Hosp. Trust Co v. Doughton
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1924
    ...156 Pac. 1141, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 546; Welch v. Treasurer and Receiver General, 223 Mass. 87, 111 N. E. 774; Oakman v. Small, 282 111. 360, 118 N. E. 775; People v. Griffith, 245 111. 532, 92 N. E. 313; People Dennett, 276 111. 43, 114 N. E. 493. The cases of State v. Brim, 57 N. C. 300, and ......
  • In re Estate of Zook
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1927
    ... ... N.Y. 564; Frothingham v. Shaw, 175 Mass. 59; ... People v. Kellogg, 268 Ill. 489; People v ... Griffith, 245 Ill. 532; Oakman v. Small, 282 ... Ill. 360; People v. Union Trust Co., 255 Ill. 168; ... In re Hodges, 170 Cal. 492; 26 R. C. L. 210; ... Blakemore & ... ...
  • Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Doughton
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1924
    ... ... Dunlap, 28 Idaho, 784, 156 P ... 1141, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 546; Welch v. Treasurer and ... Receiver General, 223 Mass. 87, 111 N.E. 774; Oakman ... v. Small, 282 Ill. 360, 118 N.E. 775; People v ... Griffith, 245 Ill. 532, 92 N.E. 313; People v ... Dennett, 276 Ill. 43, 114 N.E ... ...
  • 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