State v. Haley.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1946
• Citation: State v. Haley., 94 N.H. 69, 46 A.2d 533 (N.H. 1946)
• Parties: STATE v. HALEY.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

46 A.2d 533

STATE

v.HALEY.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

April 2, 1946.

Transferred from Superior Court, Strafford County; Leahy, Judge.

Proceeding by the State against John Haley, administrator of the estate of William J. Haley, deceased, involving liability for legacy and succession tax.From a decree of the judge of probate disallowing the assessment an appeal was taken, and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court without ruling.

Appeal dismissed.

Appeal from a decree by the Judge of Probate for Strafford County disallowing the assessment of a legacy and succession tax of $705.48 upon the judgment of Sadie Lemire, with costs, against the estate of William J. Haley, in an action of quantum meruit for services rendered and moneys advanced, which judgment was paid by the administrator to said Lemire in the amount of $8,549.75.

The pertinent agreed facts are as follows: William J. Haley died intestate January 7, 1938, seized of real estate appraised at the value of $3,500 and personal properties appraised at the value of $19,359.25.He left no children.His heirs were a brother and sister.

After the appointment of John Haley as administrator, Sadie Lemire duly presented to a commissioner appointed to hear claims a claim based both upon express contract and quantum meruit.The claim of express contract was based upon the oral promise of the decedent, made in November, 1930, to the effect that ‘if you will stay here with me for a while until I get back on my feet and stay in Rochester and be near me whenever I need you you will never be sorry for this, for some day everything I have will be yours when I am gone.’The claim was disallowed.On appeal taken to the Superior Court, where, under issue of general denial with exceptions by the defendant to the court's refusal to grant its motions to dismiss the count in contract as within the Statute of Frauds, a verdict for the plaintiff on the count in express contract was given for the full amount of the estate.

On transfer to the Supreme Court, defendant's exceptions were sustained, (April 1, 1941), the express contract was found to be barred by the Statute of Frauds and a new trial directed, ‘confined to the main issues of the plaintiff's right to recover for her services upon quantum meruit and the amount of recovery if liability is found’.Lemire v. Haley, 91 N.H. 357, 363, 19 A.2d 436, 441.

At the September Term, 1941, of the Superior Courtthe defendant admitted liability in the following pleading; ‘The defendant hereby admits that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for such items of services rendered, labors performed and moneys spent, if any, in behalf of the decedent as she may be able to legally prove to have been rendered or advanced by her to the decedent since November 3, 1930, and puts her to proof of the same and the value thereof’, and moved for dismissal of plaintiff's specifications because it was still in terms of the oral promise and express contract and not in terms of quantum meruit.

The case was then again transferred to the Supreme Court, resulting in a decision January 6, 1942, in which the defendant's declaration was decreed to be defective in setting forth a claim of quantum meruit, the issue before this court being ‘how much the plaintiff should fairly be awarded for her services and expenses rendered and incurred in action in reliance upon the contract if it was made.’Lemire v. Haley, 92 N.H. 10, 11, 23 A.2d 769.

At the February Term of the Superior Court in 1942the case was tried on an amended declaration in quantum meruit, as revised by the court upon defendant's motion objecting to any reference to the oral contract and the amount of the estate, liability for such services as the plaintiff was able to prove she had rendered being admitted.The jury returned a verdict for $12,000.This was reduced by the court to $7,000 as excessive.Upon exceptions by the plaintiff to this reduction and the court's failure to have admitted the oral contract the case was again transferred to the Supreme Court(92 N.H. 358, 31 A.2d 62), where the rulings of the court below were sustained.

At the September Term, 1943, on the third trial the jury returned a verdict of $7,500 as the fair value of services rendered, which verdict was sustained by the Supreme Court(93 N.H. 206, 39 A.2d 10), and judgment duly entered.

On or about December 1, 1944, the administrator paid $8,200.75 in settlement of this judgment of $7,500 with interest, and costs compromised at $799.75.

This payment was made without deduction of any legacy or succession tax of 8 1/2%, and without demand upon Sadie or her attorneys for the payment of the same, because the administrator understood that no tax was due, she being neither legatee nor heir, and her recovery having been in quantum meruit.

The administrator's account was filed in the Registry of Probate March 5, 1945, and a copy of the same transmitted to the Assistant Attorney-General for assessment of tax, which he did in the amount of $1,502.32 on March 2, 1945, including therein a tax of $705.48 upon the judgment and costs paid Sadie Lemire.

Notice of this assessment was immediately given to Sadie Lemire and her counsel, who denied liability and attempts of the administrator to compromise the assessment with the Assistant Attorney-General having failed, the administrator paid $696.84 of the tax, representing the balance admitted to be properly assessed, and the appeal is with respect to the disallowance of this $705.48 assessment.

Transferred without ruling by Leahy, J. Ernest R. D'Amours, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Cooper, Hall & Grimes, of Rochester (Burt R. Cooper, of Rochester, orally), for administrator.

Hughes & Burns, of Dover, for Sadie Lemire, furnished no brief.

BURQUE, Justice.

R.L. c. 87 § 1, headed ‘Taxable Property and Tax Rate’ provides that ‘All property * * * which shall pass by will * * * or by deed, grant, bargain, sale or gift made in contemplation of death, or made or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after the death of the grantor or donor * * * shall be subject to a tax of eight and one-half per cent of its value. * * *’

The State claims the amount recovered by Sadie Lemire is subject to tax, because, as stated in its brief, Sadie Lemire presented a bill for services and finally recovered a judgment in contract in the sum of $8,549.75.This is error, contrary to the fact and contrary to the agreed statement of facts.Though Sadie Lemire undertook to recover on our expressed contract, this court specifically ruled that she could not because the contract involved real estate in part, and being oral when the Statute of Frauds required it to be in writing, was therefore void and unenforceable as such.Lemire v. Haley91 N.H. 357, 19 A.2d 436.The final recovery referred to above in the State's brief was strictly...