State ex rel. Ellsworth v. Mong, No. 25432.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation130 Ohio St. 483,200 N.E. 516
Decision Date04 March 1936
PartiesSTATE ex rel. ELLSWORTH v. MONG, County Auditor, et al.
Docket NumberNo. 25432.

130 Ohio St. 483
200 N.E. 516

STATE ex rel. ELLSWORTH
v.
MONG, County Auditor, et al.

No. 25432.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 4, 1936.


Original action in mandamus by the State, on the relation of one Ellsworth, executor, against one Mong, Auditor of Summit County, and others. On relator's motion for judgment on the pleadings.-[Editorial Statement.]

Writ allowed.


[Ohio St. 483]

[200 N.E. 517]

Morris & McVeigh, of New York City, and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Robert F. Denison, W. Lowrie Fleming, Otis B. Bosworth, and John B. Dempsey, all of Cleveland, for relator.

Herman E. Werner, Pros. Atty., Robert Pflueger, Wade DeWoody, Director of Law, Nathan Koplin, and H. A. Sullivan, all of Akron, for respondents.


BY THE COURT.

This action is an original one seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the auditor of Summit county to issue a warrant upon the county treasurer in the sum of $34,505.77 as a refund of overpaid inheritance taxes. All the material allegations of the petition are admitted in the answer, and the [Ohio St. 484]relator has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in his favor.

Defendants contend that sections 5339 and 5348-12, General Code, which provide for such refund (called in the statutes a ‘refunder’), are in contravention of article XII, section 9, of the State Constitution, which provides that not less than 50 per centum of inheritance taxes that may be collected by the state shall be returned to the county, school district, city, village, or township in which said inheritance tax originates, or to any of the same, as may be provided by law, and also in contravention of article I, sections 1 and 19, of the State Constitution, and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which guarantee the right of private property.

The intent of the inheritance tax law is that inheritance taxes shall be paid promptly with right of refund of such an amount thereof as may later lawfully appear to be overpaid. The tax is computed on the net balance, and often after payment further deductions come to light which may be cared for by refund.

Under the laws of Ohio, one-half of the refund was chargeable to the state of Ohio and the remaining one-half to the village of Hudson. The portion chargeable to the state has actually been refunded. This action relates to the half chargeable to the village, decedent's place of residence.

Nothing in the sections of the General Code referred to is in violation of these constitutional provisions as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Coca-Cola Bottling Corp. v. Lindley, COCA-COLA
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • April 5, 1978
    ...who might otherwise delay payment for fear that an overpayment could not be rectified (see State, ex rel. Ellsworth v. Mong (1936), 130 Ohio St. 483, 484, 200 N.E. 516). Most important, however, it gives effect to the moral obligation of the state to return money erroneously or illegally pa......
  • Biris' Estate, In re, No. 36746
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 15, 1961
    ...and charged to the city Page 44 of Cleveland,' is fully supported by the decision of this court in State, ex rel. Ellsworth v. Mong, 130 Ohio St. 483, 200 N.E. 516, 517. In that case a writ of mandamus was sought where a refund of inheritance taxes had been previously ordered by the Probate......
  • Ellsworth Freight Lines, Inc. v. Bowers, No. 37232
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • February 14, 1962
    ...Co. v. Glander, Tax Com'r, 148 Ohio St. 592, 76 N.E.2d 605, 175 A.L.R. 1096; State, ex rel. Ellsworth, Exr., v. Mong, County Auditor, 130 Ohio St. 483, 200 N.E. 516; and Interstate Motor Freight System v. Bowers, Tax Com'r, 164 Ohio St. 122, 128 N.E.2d 97. The reliance on those cases is pri......
  • Beckman's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • March 28, 1951
    ...thereof such as prevents a refund of payment in excess of those warranted by law. State ex rel. Ellsworth, Exr., v. Mong, Aud., 130 Ohio St. 483, 200 N.E. The record in the instant case is very brief, but the Department of Taxation does not dispute the facts as claimed by the executrix. Fro......
4 cases
  • Coca-Cola Bottling Corp. v. Lindley, COCA-COLA
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • April 5, 1978
    ...who might otherwise delay payment for fear that an overpayment could not be rectified (see State, ex rel. Ellsworth v. Mong (1936), 130 Ohio St. 483, 484, 200 N.E. 516). Most important, however, it gives effect to the moral obligation of the state to return money erroneously or illegally pa......
  • Biris' Estate, In re, No. 36746
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 15, 1961
    ...and charged to the city Page 44 of Cleveland,' is fully supported by the decision of this court in State, ex rel. Ellsworth v. Mong, 130 Ohio St. 483, 200 N.E. 516, 517. In that case a writ of mandamus was sought where a refund of inheritance taxes had been previously ordered by the Probate......
  • Ellsworth Freight Lines, Inc. v. Bowers, No. 37232
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • February 14, 1962
    ...Co. v. Glander, Tax Com'r, 148 Ohio St. 592, 76 N.E.2d 605, 175 A.L.R. 1096; State, ex rel. Ellsworth, Exr., v. Mong, County Auditor, 130 Ohio St. 483, 200 N.E. 516; and Interstate Motor Freight System v. Bowers, Tax Com'r, 164 Ohio St. 122, 128 N.E.2d 97. The reliance on those cases is pri......
  • Beckman's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • March 28, 1951
    ...thereof such as prevents a refund of payment in excess of those warranted by law. State ex rel. Ellsworth, Exr., v. Mong, Aud., 130 Ohio St. 483, 200 N.E. The record in the instant case is very brief, but the Department of Taxation does not dispute the facts as claimed by the executrix. Fro......

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