State v. First Nat. Bank of Boston
Decision Date | 17 March 1931 |
Citation | 154 A. 103 |
Parties | STATE by ROBINSON, Atty. Gen., v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BOSTON. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Report from Superior Court, Cumberland County.
Action by the State, by Clement F. Robinson, Attorney General, against the First National Bank of Boston, administrator of the estate of Edward H. Haskell, deceased. On report.
Judgment for the State.
Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, and FARRINGTON, JJ., and PHILBROOK, A. R. J.
Clement F. Robinson, Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.
Franklin Fisher, of Lewiston, and Leonard A. Pierce, of Portland, for defendant.
This case comes up on report on an agreed statement of facts. Edward H. Haskell, a resident of Massachusetts, died testate January 8, 1924. The largest part of the property of the deceased consisted of shares of stock in the Great Northern Paper Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Maine. The will of the deceased was duly probated in the county of. Middlesex, Mass., and the abovementioned shares of stock were there subjected to an inheritance tax, of like character to the inheritance tax in Maine, and a tax thereon, amounting to $32, 190.53, was paid to the commonwealth of Massachusetts on legacies and distributive shares, in greater part made up from the proceeds of said stock. Ancillary administration having been taken out of the county of Androscoggin in this state, an inheritance tax of $62,350.41 was assessed by the probate court in that county on the property passing by the will of the deceased, and an appeal was taken by the executor from the assessment of this tax by the Androscoggin county probate court on the ground that the assessment was unconstitutional, and in violation of article 4, § 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America, and article 14 of the Amendments to the Constitution, and that the provisions of chapter 69, § 4, of the Revised Statutes of Maine (1916), were not applied in assessing said inheritance tax because Edward H. Haskell was not a resident of the state of Maine.
After this case was, on an appeal, argued in this court, and while there pending, the parties thereto made the following agreement:
'"February 19th, 1930.
In accordance with this agreement the decree as quoted above was duly entered on February 19, 1930, and from that decree there has been no appeal, and the decree has not been modified, reversed, annulled, or satisfied.
Following this, the Attorney General, under the statute, brought an action of debt for the collection of the tax against the executors of the estate of Edward H. Haskell, the writ being dated April 19, 1930, returnable at the May term, 1930, of the superior court in Cumberland county.
The writ, service of which was accepted by the attorneys for the defendant, was duly entered in court with general appearance on the part of the defendant through its attorneys.
Under the general issue the defendant also filed a brief statement as follows:
It was further agreed that substantially all of the Great Northern Paper Company's property, including its real estate and mills, are located within the borders of the state of Maine, and that, as appears of record in Androscoggin county probate court in these proceedings, all the property of the defendant testator with respect to which the decree sued on was based consisted of shares of stock in the Great Northern Paper Company.
On the facts and pleadings as given above, the case has come to this court for determination as to the liability of the defendant for the sum sued for, judgment to be entered for the plaintiff or defendant as this court may find proper.
It is the contention of the State that the decree of the probate court of Androscoggin county was final, no appeal or further direct proceedings having been taken in that court after entry of the decree, and that the question of unconstitutionality of the statute, or its administration by the probate court, could not be raised collaterally in the statutory action of debt to collect the tax, but only in a direct proceeding. The state in any event maintains that no constitutional rights have been invaded.
We do not feel that it is necessary to discuss the claim of the state that the judgment upon which the action of debt in the instant case was brought cannot be attacked collaterally, under the usual rule as to collateral attack, because of our strong conviction that the eases which are cited below as sustaining the right to tax were properly considered and decided on an entirely different basis from that on which consideration and decision were given to cases involving bonds, certificates of indebtedness, credits for cash on deposit, promissory notes, and advances to, and dividends due from, corporations created by the taxing state, which latter classes of cases have recently been ruled upon by the Supreme Court of the United States, as will be noted.
The contentions of the administrators of the estate are clearly and fully stated in the brief statement above quoted.
The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota, 280 U. S. 204, 50 S. Ct. 98, 74 L. Ed. 371, has held that negotiable bonds and certificates of indebtedness issued by the state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat Bank of Boston v. State of Maine
...of the death in the state of the domicile or in the taxing state'; and that the Fourteenth Amendment thereby was not infringed. 130 Me. 123, 154 A. 103, 108. Beginning with Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 23 S. Ct. 277, 47 L. Ed. 439, decisions of this court rendered before Farmers Loa......
-
In re Estate of Lund
...they have usually held that the state may impose the tax upon shares in a domestic corporation owned by a nonresident. State v. First Nat. Bank (Maine) 154 A. 103; Kingsbury v. Chapin, 196 Mass. 533, 82 N.E. 700, Ann. Cas. 738; In re Estate of Bronson, 150 N.Y. 1, 44 N.E. 707, 34 L.R.A. 238......
-
In re Lund's Estate, 28420.
...Probate Court, 128 Minn. 382, 150 N. W. 1094, L. R. A. 1916A, 901; Welch v. Treasurer, 223 Mass. 87, 111 N. E. 774; State v. First Nat. Bank of Boston (Me.) 154 A. 103, 106. This is true even where a transfer may be effected through a transfer agent outside the state. State ex rel. Bodman v......
-
Gates v. Bank of Commerce & Trust Co.
... ... record shows that Nellie Hicks Hunter died testate in the ... State of Tennessee, and the Bank of Commerce & Trust Company ... was duly ... Attorney General v. First National Bank of ... Boston, 130 Me. 123, 154 A. 103. In that case, the ... ...