Sherman v. Moore
| Decision Date | 02 March 1915 |
| Citation | 89 Conn. 190,93 A. 241 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SHERMAN et al. v. MOORE et al. |
Case Reserved from Superior Court, Pairfield County; Lucien P. Burpee, Judge.
Suit by Henry M. Sherman and another, executors of Mary E. P. Sherman, deceased, against Alice Moore and others, to determine whether an inheritance tax on pecuniary legacies shall be deducted from the amount of the legacies, or shall be paid from the residuary estate. Case reserved on an agreed statement of facts for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. Decree advised.
Mrs. Sherman died December 25, 1913, leaving an estate valued at substantially $750,000 and consisting, for the most part, of personalty, and a will with two codicils, all duly probated. In the first 22 paragraphs of her will she' disposed of various personal belongings, and made cash gifts, amounting in the whole to $261,000, to several religious and charitable organizations, two cemetery associations, her intended husband, and a considerable number of individuals, including blood relatives, relatives of a former husband, children and sister-in-law of her intended husband, a nurse of her deceased father, and intimate friends. The gift to one of the cemetery associations was revoked by a codicil, and a different gift made to it. The other cash legacies above referred to remained unaffected by the codicils, save that one was reduced in amount. The twenty-third paragraph of the will reads as follows:
. "It is my will that the foregoing devises, legacies and bequests shall be paid in full before any of the devises, legacies or bequests hereinafter made in this will are paid, and to the exclusion of those hereinafter made, if my estate should not be sufficient to pay all the devises, legacies and bequests aforesaid in full."
The following paragraph contained cash gifts, amounting to $22,000, to several societies and corporations carrying on religious, charitable, or public service work in Bridgeport. The twenty-fifth disposed of the residue of the testatrix's estate by dividing it equally among nine persons, all related to her by blood or marriage. By the first codicil her then husband was added to this group. All the cash legacies contained in the paragraph of the will preceding the twenty-third, to wit, those contained in the second, seventh, eighth, tenth, thirteenth, fourteenth, sixteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first, are subject to the payment to the state of an inheritance tax. The question presented for the advice of the superior court is whether the plaintiffs, executors, should pay these cash legacies after deducting from each the amount of the inheritance tax chargeable under the laws of this state, or whether such legacies should be paid in full, and the amount of such inheritance tax paid from the residuary estate.
Arthur M. Comley, of Bridgeport, for plaintiffs. Alfred B. Beers, of Bridgeport, for defendants Leroy Leavenworth et al. Louis K. Gould and Robert H. Gould, both of Bridgeport, for defendant William Perry Downs. Carl Poster, of Bridgeport, for defendant Josephine C. Mayer.
PRENTICE, C. J. (after stating the facts as above). In the absence of provision to the contrary in the testatrix's will, it would be the duty of the executors to deduct from the amount of the several legacies the amount of the inheritance tax properly chargeable to each legacy respectively, and to pay to each legatee the balance only.
Our act "does not provide for the taxation of any property left by a decedent, nor any person interested in his estate." Hopkins' Appeal, 77 Conn. 644, 649, 60 Atl. 657, 659. The so-called tax is in the nature of a "death duty" taken from the estate in the custody of the law. It is levied upon that portion, and that only, of the estate which by operation of the law and its machinery will pass to beneficiaries designated by will or statutes regulating inheritance. The burden thus cast upon the estate, which is to devolve upon beneficiaries,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ericson v. Childs
...supra, what we there said is largely applicable here. We there quoted (122 Conn. 107, at page 127, 187 A. 653, 661) from Sherman v. Moore, 89 Conn. 190, 193, 93 A. 241, follows: ‘ As the practical effect of a provision making a legacy or devise free of tax is to increase the gift, and to sh......
-
Watrous v. Connelly
...regard to that portion of the estate which will pass to the transferees. Hopkins' Appeal, 77 Conn. 644, 651, 60 A. 657; Sherman v. Moore, 89 Conn. 190, 193, 93 A. 241; Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 501, 503, 103 A. 647; Bankers Trust Co. v. Blodgett, 96 Conn. 361, 365, 114 A. 104; Blodgett ......
-
Priedeman v. Jamison
...imposed by the statute. Bemis v. Converse, 246 Mass. 131, 140 N.E. 686; In re Holmes' Estate 328 Mo. 143, 40 S.W.2d 616; Sherman v. Moore, 89 Conn. 190, 93 A. 241; United States Trust Co. v. Sears, 29 F.Supp. In re Mill's Estate, 64 N.Y.S. (2d) 105. (2) The principles of construction of wil......
-
Hackett v. Bankers Trust Co.
...residuary beneficiaries, the intent of the testator to make one will not be drawn from vague or uncertain language." Sherman v. Moore, 89 Conn. 190, 193, 93 A. 241, 242. The result of the construction which we adopt is that the tax upon such transfers under the trust indentures as we have h......