State ex rel. McClintock v. Guinotte

• Decision Date: 15 July 1918
• Citation: 204 S.W. 806,275 Mo. 298
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. MARY H. McCLINTOCK et al. v. JULES E. GUINOTTE, Judge of Probate Court
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

204 S.W. 806

275 Mo. 298

THE STATE ex rel. MARY H. McCLINTOCK et al. v. JULES E. GUINOTTE, Judge of Probate Court

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 15, 1918

Writ quashed.

Beardsley & Beardsley, Martin E. Lawson, and John M. Atkinson, for appellant.

(1) The Inheritance Tax Act of 1917 is violative of Section 3 of Article 10 of the Constitution of Missouri in that said tax is (a) not uniform upon the same class of subjects, as it provides for a graduated or progressive tax on the same class of subjects, and (b) provides different exemptions on the same class of subjects. State ex rel. v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287; State ex rel. v. Henderson, 160 Mo 190; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. l. c. 70; Cope's Estate, 191 Pa. St. 24; State ex rel. v Ferris, 53 Ohio St. 314; Haggerty v. State, 55 Ohio St. 613; Ohio Laws 1894, p. 169; Allen v Smith, 84 Ohio St. 292; Snell v. State Railway Company, 60 Ohio St. 269; Southern Gum Company v Laylin, 66 Ohio St. 594; State v. Hamlin, 86 Me. 495; Magoun v. Ill. Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 292; City of St. Louis v. Speigel, 75 Mo. 145; City of St. Louis v. Speigel, 90 Mo. 587; City of St. Louis v. Bowler, 94 Mo. 630; City of Independence v. Gates, 110 Mo. 374; Kansas City v. Whipple, 136 Mo. 475; Kansas City v. Grush, 151 Mo. 128; State ex rel. v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375; State v. Bengsch, 170 Mo. 81; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 216 Mo. 91; State v. Miksicek, 225 Mo. 561; State v. Broadnax, 228 Mo. 25; Levee District v. Railroad, 240 Mo. 614; State ex rel. v. Burton, 266 Mo. 721; Magoun v. Ill. Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 283. (2) Said Inheritance Tax Act of 1917 is violative of Section 43 of Article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri which provides that all revenue collected and moneys received by the State from any source whatever shall go into the Treasury, and the General Assembly shall have no power to divert the same or to permit money to be drawn from the Treasury except in pursuance of regular appropriations made by law, in that said act provides that the State Treasurer shall permit money to be drawn from the Treasury without appropriations first being made by law. Exparte Lucas, 160 Mo. 218; State v. Schramm, 199 S.W. 194; Friend v. Levy, 76 Ohio St. 50; State ex rel. v. Walsh, 28 Wis. 549; State v. Bockstock, 136 Mo. 353; State v. Bengsch, 170 Mo. 114. (3) Said Inheritance Tax Act of 1917 violates Subsections 16 and 21 of Section 53 of Article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri which provides that the General Assembly shall not pass (a) any local or special law changing the law of descent or succession, or (b) any special law affecting the estates of minors or persons under disability. Re Cope's Estate, 191 Pa. St. 24-25; Hager v. Walker, 128 Ky. 12; Exparte Lucas, 160 Mo. 230; State ex rel. v. Burton, 266 Mo. 720. (4) Said Inheritance Tax Act of 1917 violates Section 30 of Article 2 of the Constitution of Missouri and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, in that said act deprives relators and other persons of property without due process of law. Thorpe v. Miller, 137 Mo. 231; Ferry v. Campbell, 110 Iowa 290; Davidson v. Board of Admrs. of New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97; Embree v. Kansas City & L. B. Road Dist., 240 U.S. 242. (5) Said Inheritance Tax Act of 1917 violates Section 28 of Article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri, in that said Act (a) contains more than one subject, and (b) which subjects are not clearly expressed in its title. St. Louis v. Tiefel, 42 Mo. 578; State v. Miller, 45 Mo. 495; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439; State v. Bronson, 115 Mo. 271; Lynch v. Murphy, 119 Mo. 163; State ex rel. v. Slover, 134 Mo. 10; Gabbert v. Ry., 171 Mo. 84; State v. Coffee & Tea Co., 171 Mo. 634; Ferguson v. Gentry, 206 Mo. 189. (6) Said Inheritance Tax Act of 1917 violates the uniformity clause of said Section 3 of Article 10 of the Constitution of Missouri, in that said act classifies all beneficiaries into five legislative classifications, which classifications are purely arbitrary and discriminatory. Kansas City v. Grush, 151 Mo. 135.

Frank W. McAllister, Attorney-General, S. E. Skelley, George V. Berry, Thomas J. Cole and John T. Gose, Assistant Attorneys-General, for respondent.

(1) History of inheritance taxation. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, pp. 133, 163 164; West on Inheritance Tax, p. 11; Dowell's History of Taxation in England, 148; State v. Alston, 94 Tenn. 674; Magoun v. Ill. Trust & Savings Co., 170 U.S. 283; State v. Hamlin, 86 Me. 495; Blakemore & Bancroft Inheritance Taxes, ch. 4, p. 13; Ross, Inheritance Taxation, p. 17; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41; Matter of McPherson, 104 N.Y. 306; Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601; In re McKennan, 130 N.W. (S. D.) 33; Appeal of Nettleton, 76 Conn. 235; Review of Reviews, February, 1893; Maguire v. University, 271 Mo. 363. (2) Inheritance taxation from an ecomomic standpoint. Max West, Monograph on Inheritance Tax, p. 189; Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 5, Chap. 2, Part 2; Mills, Principles of Political Economy, Book 5, Chap. 11, sec. 3; Minnesota Tax Commission Report, 1910; In re Morris, 138 N.C. 259; State v. Bazille, 97 Minn. 16; Magoun v. Ill. Trust & Savings Co., 170 U.S. 293; In re McKennan, 130 N.W. (S. D.) 38; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 109; Blakemore & Bancroft, Inheritance Taxes, chap. 3. (3) The power of the General Assembly to levy an inheritance tax is an inherent power. Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U.S. 252; Magoun v. Ill. Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 292; Booth v. Commonwealth, 130 Ky. 88; Matter of McPherson, 104 N.Y. 306; Eury v. State, 74 Ohio St. 448; Schoolfield v. Lynchburg, 78 Va. 372; State v. Dalrymple, 70 Md. 294; State v. Clark, 30 Wash. 439; In re Morris, 138 N.C. 259; State v. Lancaster, 4 Neb. 537; In re Joslyn, 76 Vt. 88; In re McKennan, 130 N.W. (S. D.) 33; Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 493; People v. Griffith, 245 Ill. 532; Appeal of Nettleton, 76 Conn. 235; State ex rel. v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 216; Ross, Inheritance Taxation, sec. 14, p. 20. (4) An inheritance tax is not a property tax. State ex rel v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 215; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41; Magoun v. Ill. Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 283; United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625; Plummer v. Coler, 178 U.S. 115; National Safe & Deposit Co. v. Illinois, 232 U.S. 58; Scholey v. Rew, 90 U.S. 331; State v. Handline, 100 Ark. 175; In re Wilmerding, 117 Cal. 281; Brown v. Elder, 32 Colo. 527; Kochersperger v. Drake, 167 Ill. 122; McGhee v. State, 105 Iowa 9; Booth v. Commonwealth, 130 Ky. 88; Succession of Kohn, 115 La. 71; State v. Hamlin, 86 Me. 495; State v. Dalrymple, 70 Md. 294; Minot v. Winthrop, 162 Mass. 113; Union Trust Co. v. Probate Judge, 125 Mich. 484; State v. Bazille, 97 Minn. 11; Gelsthorpe v. Furnell, 20 Mont. 299; State v. Vinsonhaler, 94 Neb. 675; Hartmann's Appeal, 70 N.J.Eq. 664; Matter of White, 208 N.Y. 64; Morris Estate, 138 N.C. 259; In re McKennan, 130 N.W. (S. D.) 33; State v. Alston, 94 Tenn. 674; In re Joslyn, 76 Vt. 88; Eyre v. Jacob, 14 Gratt. 429; White v. Tax Commission, 42 Wash. 360; Beals v. State, 139 Wis. 544; Kingsbury v. Chapin, 196 Mass. 533; In re Touhy, 35 Mont. 431; State v. Bullen, 143 Wis. 518; In re Kennedy, 157 Cal. 517; In re Macky, 45 Colo. 316; In re Speed, 203 U.S. 553; Humphreys v. State, 70 Ohio St. 67; Knox v. Emerson, 123 Tenn. 409; Attorney-General v. Stone, 209 Mass. 186; Blakemore & Bancroft, Inheritance Taxes, chap. 2; Ross, Inheritance Taxation, secs. 4 and 5; Gleason & Otis, Inheritance Taxation, pp. 1-11; Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 493. (5) Section 4 of Article 10 of the Constitution of Missouri, providing that all property subject to taxation shall be taxed in proportion to its value, relates only to a tax on property, and does not apply to excise taxation or taxes other than those on property. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Chorn, S.W. Advance Sheets, April 24, 1918; Bankers' Life v. Chorn, 186 S.W. 682; Masonic Aid v. Waddill, 138 Mo. 628; Aurora v. McGannon, 138 Mo. 38; American Express Co. v. St. Joseph, 66 Mo. 675; Ward v. Board, 135 Mo. 309; State ex rel. v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 190; State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1; Glasgow v. Rowse, 43 Mo. 479; St. Louis v. Green, 7 Mo.App. 468, 70 Mo. 562. (6) Section 3 of Article 10 of the Constitution of Missouri, providing that taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, is complied with when the tax operates alike upon all those similarly situated or in like circumstances. State v. McGannon, 138 Mo. 49; Masonic Aid v. Waddill, 138 Mo. 637; Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U.S. 350; Bankers' Life v. Chorn, 186 S.W. 683; Kansas City v. Richardson, 90 Mo.App. 456; St. Louis v. Green, 7 Mo.App. 468; City v. Green, 70 Mo. 562; State ex rel. v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 216. (7) Classification according to degree of relationship, discrimination between lineal and collateral relatives and strangers to the blood of the decendent, is now well recognized and firmly established as being within the power and discretion of the Legislature; and such classification and discrimination is held not to offend any constitutional rule of uniformity and equality. Keeney v. New York, 222 U.S. 536; Estate of Wilmerding, 117 Cal. 281; Estate of Campbell, 200 U.S. 87; In re McKennan, 130 N.W. 33; Kochersperger v. Drake, 167 Ill. 122; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 287; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41; Estate of Magnes, 32 Colo. 527; Appeal of Nettleton, 76 Conn. 235; Billings v. State, 189 Ill. 472, 59 L. R. A. 807; Booth v. Commonwealth, 113 S.W. 61; State v. Hamlin, 86 Me. 495, 41 Am. St. 569, 25 L. R. A. 632; Tyson v. State, 28 Md. 577; State v. Dalrymple, 70 Md. 294, 3 L. R. A. 372; Minot v. Winthrop, 162 Mass. 113, 26 L. R. A. 259; ...