People v. Hulburd
Decision Date | 22 October 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 17743.,17743. |
Parties | PEOPLE v. HULBURD et al. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding by the People of the State of Illinois against De Forest Hulburd and others, executors, assessing inheritance taxes against the estate of Charles H. Hulburd, deceased. From the judgment, the executors appeal.
Affirmed.Appeal from Cook County Court; I. L. Weaver, Judge.
Gardner & Carton, of Chicago, for appellants.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., and Harry A. Ash and Joseph Polnick, both of Chicago, for the People.
DE YOUNG, J.
This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the county court of Cook county assessing inheritance taxes against the estate of Charles H. Hulburd, deceased. The decedent was a resident of the city of Chicago and died testate on January 14, 1924. He left surviving him, as his only heirs, De Forest Hulburd, his son, and Hulburd Johnston, Mary Elizabeth Johnston, Hugh McBirney Johnston, Jr., and Ethel De Forest Johnston, his grandchildren, the children of Ethel Johnston, his deceased daughter. The ages of these grandchildren at the time of the testator's death were, respectively, 17, 14, 12, and 8 years. By the first section of his will the testator directed the payment of his debts and funeral expenses and the inheritance taxes upon his estate; by the second section he devised and bequeathed to his son, De Forest Hulburd, his homestead, known as 1138 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, with all his household goods; and by the third section he bequeathed to his son his jewelry, wearing appearel, personal effects, and automobiles. By the fourth section of his will the testator bequeathed all his stock in the Union Special Machine Company to Hugh McBirney Johnston, his son-in-law, upon the following trusts:
The testator by the fifth section of his will devised and bequeathed one-half of the residue of his estate to his son, De Forest Hulburd. By the sixth section he devised and bequeathed the remaining one-half of the residue to his son-in-law, Hugh McBirney Johnston, and his son, De Forest Hulburd, upon the identical trusts created by the fourth section of the will. The powers of the trustees are defined by the seventh section, and the eighth names John Gillies as successor in trust. By the ninth section Hugh McBirney Johnston and De Forest Hulburd are nominated as executors, their powers as such are defined, and Gillies is named their successor. Gillies died before the testator, and the latter by a codicil to his will named the Northern Trust Company as successor, both to the trustees and to the executors, in Gillies' stead.
The estate of the testator was appraised at $1,041,024.13 as of the day of his death. The total of the inheritance taxes as fixed by the county court's judgment was $71,793.73, constituted as follows:
+--------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Upon the transfers to De Forest Hulburd, ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦the son ¦$40,987 26¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦Upon the transfer to each of three grand- ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦children, Hulburd Johnston, Mary Eliza- ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦beth Johnston and Hugh McBirney ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦Johnston, Jr., of the income for one ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦year in one-quarter of the bequest by ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦the fourth section of the will and of the ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦income for one year is one-quarter of ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦one-half of the residue of the estate de- ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦vised and bequested by the sixth section ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦of the will, appraised, respectively,at ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦$1,339.31 and $4,439.38, aggregating $5,778.-¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦69, against which each of the three grand- ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦children was allowed an exemption of ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦$20,000, resulting in no tax. ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦Upon the transfer to the fourth grandchild, ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦Ethel De Forest Johnston, of (1) the in- ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦come for one year in one-quarter of the ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦bequest by the fourth section of the will, ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦appraised at $1,339.31; (2) the income for ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦one year in one-quarter of one-half of ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦the residue of the estate devised and be- ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦quethed by the sixth section of the will, ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦appraised at $4,439.38; (3) the remainder ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦of the bequest by the fourth section of the ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦will, after the income for one year there- ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦in to Hulburd Johnston, Mary Elizabeth ¦ ¦...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Bernheimer's Estate, 38602.
...Tracy, 83 N.Y.S. 1049; Estate of Brown, 24 Hawaii, 443. (8) Section 597 applies to either vested or contingent estates. People v. Hulbard, 327 Ill. 72, 158 N.E. 373; In re Sperling's Estate, 234 N.Y.S. 119; In re Vanderbilt's Estate, 172 N.Y. 69, 64 N.E. 782. (9) The will in question here p......
-
In re Bernheimer's Estate
... ... the corpus of the trust. Matter of Tracy, 179 N.Y ... 501, 72 N.E. 519; People v. Lowenstein, 284 Ill ... 126, 119 N.E. 917. (6) Section 577, which cross-appellants ... invoke, is inapplicable because it only applies when ... ...
- Morrison v. Beers
-
Jones v. People (In re Harding's Estate)
...entitling the trustees of said estate to reassessment and refund. This contention is not tenable, because we have held in People v. Hulburd, 327 Ill. 72, 158 N.E. 373, in construing the application of section 25 of the act in question, that whether there is a contingency must be decided pro......