State ex rel. Frye v. Bazille

• Decision Date: 28 November 1902
• Citation: 87 Minn. 500,92 N.W. 415
• Parties: STATE ex rel. FRYE v. BAZILLE, Judge of Probate.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

87 Minn. 500

92 N.W. 415

STATE ex rel. FRYE

v.BAZILLE, Judge of Probate.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 28, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; George L. Bunn, Judge.

Application by the state, on the relation of Jeanette T. Frye, administratrix of Stina Johnson, deceased, for writ of mandamus to Edmund W. Bazille, judge of probate of Ramsey county. Judgment for relator, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Chapter 255, Laws 1901, known as the ‘Inheritance Tax Law,’ is held unconstitutional and void, because it operates unequally as between collateral, and also as between collateral and lineal, descendants. Transfers of property to the former are taxed to the full value, when such value exceeds $5,000, whereas as to lineal descendants the tax is imposed only upon the excess over and above a fixed valuation of $5,000. Drew v. Tift, 81 N. W. 839, 79 Minn. 175,47 L. R. A. 525, 79 Am. St. Rep. 446, followed and applied. W. B. Douglas, Atty. Gen., T. R. Kane Co. Atty., and O. H. O'Neill, Asst. Co. Atty., for appellant.

Ambrose Tighe (A. B. Jackson, of counsel), M. B. Koon, and Jas. I. Best, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

Mandamus proceedings were commenced in the district court of Ramsey county to compel the probate court to make a final distribution of the estate of Stina Johnson, deceased; that court having refused to do so, except upon payment of an inheritance tax. Judgment was there awarded for the relator, from which appellant, defendant therein, appealed.

The sole question presented for our consideration is the constitutionality of chapter 255, Laws 1901, known as the ‘Inheritance Tax Law.’ The act was passed subsequent to the decision in Drew v. Tift, 79 Minn. 175, 81 N. W. 839,47 L. R. A. 525, 79 Am. St. Rep. 446, and was, in all probability, intended to meet the requirements of the law as there enunciated. The constitution provides: ‘There may be by law levied and collected a tax upon all inheritances, devises, bequests, legacies and gifts of every kind and description, above a fixed and specified sum, of any and all natural persons and corporations. Such tax above such exempted sum may be uniform or it may be graduated or progressive; but it shall not exceed a maximum tax of five per cent.’ A general discussion of the validity of legislation of this sort is unnecessary, since in the case just cited the principles applicable to the subject were very clearly and fully discussed in the opinion of Chief Justice Start. We have only to determine whether the act under consideration comes within the law as there laid down. It was there held that section 1, art. 9, of our constitution, being a provision requiring equality of taxation, applies to inheritance taxes, exactly as it does to taxes on other property, except as therein otherwise expressly provided, and that statutes providing for such taxes, to be valid, must including all inheritances, devises, bequests, and legacies, of every kind and description, including those of both real and personal property, and, further, that they must be uniform, and apply equally to all persons or corporations, whether collateral or lineal descendants. The decision covers the law in other respects, but the features just mentioned are alone pertinent to the questions presented in the case at bar. If the act does not operate uniformly and equally as to all persons or corporations, or if it applies solely to personal property, it cannot be sustained. We shall proceed to consider whether it is objectionable on either ground.

Section 1 of the act (that referring to collateral descendants) provides as follows: ‘A tax shall be and is hereby imposed upon the transfer of any property, real, personal or mixed, tangible or intangible, over which this state has jurisdiction, or of any interest therein or income therefrom, in trust or otherwise, when the value of such property, interest or income exceeds $5,000, in the following cases: First. When the transfer is by will or by the intestate laws of this state from any person dying, deceased or possessed of the property while a resident of this state. * * * Such tax is also imposed when any person or corporation becomes beneficially entitled in possession or expectancy to any property or the income thereof by any such transfer, whether made before or after the passage of this act. Such tax shall be at the rate of five per cent. of the clear market of the property, interest or income, except as otherwise provided in the next section; provided, that...