State v. Hamlin

• Decision Date: 27 July 1894
• Citation: State v. Hamlin, 30 A. 76, 80 Me. 195 (Me. 1894)
• Parties: STATE v. HAMLIN et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

30 A. 76

80 Me. 195

STATE

v. HAMLIN et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

July 27, 1894.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Penobscot county.

Application by George H. Hamlin, executor of the estate of Edward Mansfield, deceased for a determination of the collateral inheritance tax to be deducted from each legacy and devise under the will.From the decree rendered the state appeals.Affirmed.

The question arose under St. 1893, c. 146, entitled, "An act to tax collateral inheritances."

Upon the application of the executor of the will, and after due notice and hearing, the judge made the following decree:

(1) That, under sections 1and2 of said act, there shall be deducted the sum of $500 from each legacy and devise in said will which comes under the operation of said law, and that the tax under said act shall be computed upon the value of what remains of each said legacy and devise, after deducting therefrom $500.

The state thereupon appealed, and assigned the following reasons of appeal:

(1) That said decree relieves said estate from taxation under said act to a greater extent than said law contemplates.

(2) That the exemption provided for in said act is a single exemption of $500 from the whole property, which by the terms of said will is subject to the provisions of said act and not an exemption of $500 from each legacy or devise affected by said act as said decree assumes.

(3) That by the decree aforesaid a very much larger sum than $500 will be so exempted.

The executor and legatees under the will also contended that the act was unconstitutional.

C. A. Bailey, Co. Atty., for the State.

C. J. Dunn, for executor.F. A. Wilson, for legatees and devisees.A. W. Paine, amicus curiae.

STROUT, J.This appeal from the decree of the judge of probate arises under chapter 146, § 1, of the statute of 1893.That section is as follows:

"Section 1.All property within the jurisdiction of this state, and any interest therein, whether belonging to inhabitants of this state or not, and whether tangible or intangible, which shall pass by will or by the intestate laws of this state, or by deed, grant, sale, or gift made or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment after the death of the grantor, to any person in trust or otherwise, other than to or for the use of the father, mother, husband, wife, lineal descendant, adopted child, the lineal descendant of any adopted child, the wife or widow of a son, or the husband of the daughter of a decedent, shall be liable to a tax of two and a half per cent. of its value, above the sum of five hundred dollars, for the use of the state, and all administrators, executors, and trustees, and any such grantee under a conveyance made during the grantor's life shall be liable for all such taxes, with lawful interest as hereinafter provided, until the same shall have been paid as hereinafter directed."

It is strenuously claimed by the appellee that the act is in violation of the constitutional provision that all men "have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property."Article 1, § 1.

"Private property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation; nor unless the public exigencies require it."Article 1, § 21.

"All taxes upon real and personal estate, assessed by authority of this state, shall be apportioned and assessed equally, according to the just value thereof."Article 9, § 8.Also of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States.

Succession duties or taxes have been in existence in other countries for centuries, and have been regarded with favor, as a convenient and comparatively nonburdensome means of revenue.They were well known in Roman jurisprudence (1 Gibbon's Rome, p. 133), and were imposed upon all successions, except those to the nearest relatives and to the poor.The practice has long been resorted to in European countries, and was introduced in England in the last century, and was enlarged from time to time till 1853, when it was extended to all successions to real property, chattels real, and a vast variety of personal property and rights.

In this country they were imposed by congress by acts of June 30, 1864, and July 13, 1866, which were repealed in 1870.They were held by the supreme court of the United States to impose an excise tax or duty, and, as such, not in violation of the constitution of the United States.Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 331.

The policy of taxing collateral inheritances was adopted in Pennsylvania, in 1826, and has been adhered to ever since.In that state the statute has been constantly recognized as valid by its supreme courtStrode v. Com., 52 Pa. St 181;Orcutt's Appeal, 97 Pa. St 179;Bittinger's Estate, 129 Pa. St. 338, 18 Atl. 132.

In Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, New York, and several other states, laws imposing succession taxes have been enacted and are now in force,—that of Virginia dating back to 1844; of Delaware, to 1869; Maryland, to 1864; the others, of more recent date.In Maryland the act was attacked as in violation of the declaration of rights in the constitution of 1864, which declared, "that the levying of taxes by the poll is grievous and oppressive, and ought to be prohibited; that paupers ought not to be assessed for the support of the government, but every other person in the state, or person holding property therein, ought to contribute his proportion of public taxes, for the support of government, according to his actual worth in real or personal property; yet fines, duties or taxes may properly and justly be imposed or laid, with a political view, for the good government and benefit of the community."But the court of appeals held the statute to be constitutional.Robinson, J., in delivering the opinion of the court said: "We have not the slightest doubt as to the constitutionality of the law.* * * The restrictions imposed by it [the constitution] upon the legislative power, as to the objects of taxation, are explicitly declared.Poll taxes are denounced as grievous and oppressive, paupers are exempted from assessment, and all other persons are required to pay their proportion of public taxes according to the value of their property.Arbitrary taxes on property, without regard to value, are expressly prohibited, and all measures for the collection and imposition of taxes upon property are required to conform to this general principle of equality.Whilst thus providing for a uniform mode of taxation on property, it was not the purpose of the framers of the constitution to prohibit any other species of taxation, but to leave the legislature the power to impose such other taxes as the necessities of the government might require."Tyson v. State, 28 Md. 586;State v. Dalrymple, 70 Md. 294, 17 Atl. 82.

In Virginia the supreme court held the same doctrine in Eyre v. Jacob, 14 Grat 430.In that casethe court said: "The right to take property by devise or descent is the creature of the law, and secured and protected by its authority.The legislature might, if it saw proper, restrict the succession to a decedent's estate, either by devise or descent, to a particular class of his kindred,—say to his lineal descendants and ascendants,—and it might impose terms and conditions upon which collateral relatives may be permitted to take it, or it may tomorrow, if it please, absolutely repeal the statute of wills and that of descents and distributions, and declare that upon the death of a party his property shall be applied to the payment of his debts, and the residue appropriated to public uses."

The statute of New York (chapter 483,Laws 1885) contains substantially the same provisions, and nearly the same exemptions, as the first section of chapter 146 of the Laws of 1893 of our state.It does not differ in principle from ours.The question of the constitutionality of this act came before the New York court of appeals in Re McPherson, 104 N. Y. 306, 10 N. E. 685, and that court said: "We entertain no doubt that such a tax can be constitutionally imposed.The power of the legislature over the subject of taxation, except as limited by constitutional restrictions, is unbounded.It is for that body, in the exercise of its discretion, to select objects of taxation.It may impose all the taxes upon land, or all upon personal property, or all upon houses or upon incomes."A like statute in New Hampshire was held by the supreme court of that state to be in violation of that state's constitution, which empowered the legislature to assess and lay taxes, but expressly limited that grant of power to "proportional and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes, upon all the inhabitants and residents within the said state, and upon the estates within the same."And, by article 12 of the bill of rights, every member of the community "is bound to contribute his share to the expense" of the state.Curry v. Spencer, 61 N. H. 624.

We are not aware that the question has been decided in any other state where similar statutes exist.These decisions of the courts, being based upon constitutions containing provisions in some cases unlike, and in others like, but not the same, as our constitution, have a lessened weight as authority here.In Virginia the constitution required taxes to be equal and uniform.In Maryland the constitutional provision required every person holding property to contribute his proportion of public taxes, according to his actual worth in real or personal property.But, whatever may be the particular language of the several state constitutions, all the cases assume that the constitution, either in terms or by necessary implication, requires taxation of property to be equal and uniform; and in all of them, except the New Hampshire case, succession taxes are regarded as special taxes or duties, or, more exactly, excises, not falling within...