State ex rel. Smith v. Probate Court of St. Louis Cnty.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1917
• Docket Number: No. 20600.,20600.
• Citation: 138 Minn. 107,164 N.W. 365
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SMITH, Atty. Gen., v. PROBATE COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

138 Minn. 107

164 N.W. 365

STATE ex rel. SMITH, Atty. Gen.,

v.PROBATE COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY et al.

No. 20600.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 5, 1917.

Writ of certiorari out of Supreme Court by the State, on the relation of Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, against the Probate Court of the County of St. Louis and others, to review its order treating the expense of erecting a tombstone as an expense of administration, and not as a part of the estate subject to an inheritance tax. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The expenditure by an executor, with the approval of the probate court, of a reasonable sum to provide a suitable tombstone upon the grave of the deceased, is an expense of administration of the estate, and the amount so expended is not subject to an inheritance tax under G. S. 1913, § 2271. Lyndon A. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Egbert S. Oakley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for relator.

Baldwin, Baldwin & Homes, of Duluth, for respondents.

HALLAM, J.

William T. Bailey died testate leaving an estate inventoried at $58,601.45. He left surviving a widow, the sole beneficiary under the will. The sum of $7,000 was allowed by the probate court, without testamentary provision therefor, for the erection of a tombstone upon the grave of deceased. The probate court treated this as an expense of administration and not a part of the estate subject to inheritance tax. The state asks a review of the ruling upon certiorari. It claims this amount is subject to taxation.

We agree with the probate court. The statute imposes a tax upon ‘any transfer of property * * * when the transfer is by will.’ G. S. 1913, § 2271. It does not impose a tax upon money used to pay expenses of administration. There is no question as to the reasonableness of the amount expended for the tombstone, and the question in the case is this: Is the expenditure by the executor under allowance by the probate court, of a reasonable sum for a tombstone a proper expense of administration?

It is quite generally held in the case of solvent estates that the necessary cost of a reasonable tombstone placed at the grave of a deceased person is properly classed as funeral expenses or expenses of administration which may be allowed to an executor or administrator in settlement of his account. Pease v. Christman, 158 Ind. 642, 64 N. E. 90;Ferrin v. Myrick, 41 N. Y. 315;Van Emon v. Superior Court, 76 Cal. 589, 18 Pac. 877,9 Am. St. Rep. 258;Spire v. Lovell, 17 Ill. App. 559;Griggs v. Veghte, 47 N. J. Eq. 179, 19 Atl. 867;Kroll v. Close, 82 Ohio, 190, 92 N. E. 29,28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 571. It has been so held even when no provision is made in the will therefor. Webb's Estate, 165 Pa. 330, 30 Atl. 827,44 Am. St. Rep. 666. The propriety of the expenditure and the amount of it, it is said, should rest largely in the discretion of the probate court. Fairman's Appeal from Probate, 30 Conn. 205;Crapo v. Armstrong, 61 Iowa, 697, 17 N. W. 41.

In some cases, in which provision is found for such expenditure in the will, it has been held to be a proper expense of administration and...