State v. Wingert

• Court: Maryland Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CONSTABLE, J.
• Citation: State v. Wingert, 132 Md. 605, 104 A. 117 (Md. 1918)
• Decision Date: 11 April 1918
• Docket Number: 55,56.
• Parties: STATE v. WINGERT et al. WINGERT et al. v. WINGERT et al.

104 A. 117

132 Md. 605

STATE v. WINGERT et al.

WINGERT et al. v. WINGERT et al.

Nos. 55, 56.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 11, 1918

Appeals from Circuit Court, Washington County; M. L. Keedy, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Proceedings to fix and ascertain the collateral inheritance tax on the real estate of P. Hager Wingert, deceased. From decree passed on bill filed to restrain the administrators, Henry F Wingert and others, from enforcing the collection of the tax also enjoining the State, the State and heirs at law, Martha A. Wingert and others, appeal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

Ogle Marbury, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Albert C. Ritchie, Atty. Gen., and Omer T. Kaylor, State's Atty. for Washington County, of Hagerstown, on the brief), for the State.

Harvey R. Spessard, of Hagerstown (Miller Wingert of Hagerstown, on the brief), for Martha A. Wingert and others.

CONSTABLE J.

The property about which these cross-appeals are concerned has been before this court on four former appeals, this being the fifth. The former cases are reported in 125 Md. 536, 94 A. 166, 127 Md. 80, 95 A. 1055, 129 Md. 28, 98 A. 224 and the last to be reported in 132 Md. -, 103 A. 437. The present appeals were taken from a decree passed upon a bill filed to restrain the administrators of P. Hager Wingert from enforcing the collection of collateral inheritance tax on certain real property mentioned in the bill in paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof.

The court below ordered that the administrators aforesaid and the state of Maryland show cause on or before a certain day why the injunction should not be issued, and pending the determination of the relief as prayed issued a preliminary injunction restraining the administrators from collecting or attempting to collect the tax. On the hearing the court decreed that as to the property described in the fourth paragraph the preliminary injunction be made perpetual upon the administrators and the state, but as to the property described in paragraph 5 decreed that the preliminary injunction be dissolved. An appeal was taken by the state from that part of the decree perpetually enjoining the state and the administrators from collecting the tax on the property mentioned in paragraph 4, and the heirs at law, excepting the administrators, appealed from the portion refusing the injunction as to the property mentioned in paragraph 5 of the bill.

The bill alleged that the administrators were attempting to collect collateral inheritance tax on certain property of which it was claimed that P. Hager Wingert died seised and possessed, intestate, unmarried, and without issue, leaving as his heirs at law six sisters and brothers. The property mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the bill, upon which it was claimed by the complainants that no tax was due or collectible, was property for which the record title stood in the name of Eliza J. Wingert, the mother of P. Hager Wingert, and who had died intestate, leaving seven children, including P. Hager Wingert, surviving her as her only heirs at law, and to whom the property descended in equal shares if owned by her. The property mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the bill was property in which it was alleged there was no record title in P. Hager Wingert, nor in the name of any of the antecedents of P. Hager Wingert, through whom he could have inherited, nor any other title which would subject the property to the payment of the collateral inheritance tax.

The only question presented as to the properties in the fourth paragraph of the bill are whether Eliza J. Wingert at the time of her death absolutely owned the properties, or, although the legal title stood in her name, as a fact did she hold the same as trustee for her six children to the exclusion of P. Hager Wingert. If she owned the properties absolutely, or held them for the benefit of all her children, including P. Hager, then, of course, at her death intestate P. Hager was entitled to a one-seventh interest, and upon his death intestate, unmarried, and without issue, and seised and possessed of said interest in the properties, the collateral inheritance tax would be payable by his heirs at law.

It was upon the theory that Mrs. Wingert held the properties as trustee for the benefit of six of her children, not including P. Hager, and that he held no interest whatever in them, that the bill was filed.

The real question then is: Did Mrs. Wingert hold the legal title to the properties with a resulting trust for the benefit of six of her children? Very recently has the question of what is essential to effect such a trust been so carefully and so exhaustively considered by this court, where, in the opinion by Judge Burke in Dixon v. Dixon, 123 Md. 45, 90 A. 846, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 616, practically all of the decisions of this court were reviewed, together with many other authorities, that we deem it idle to review them further than to state the conclusion as to the rules of law therein reached by this court:

"The general rule is well settled that, when the purchase price is paid by one person and the title is taken in the name of another, a resulting trust arises in favor of the person paying the purchase money, and the holder of the legal title becomes a trustee for him. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule: Thus, where a person purchases land and pays the consideration with his own money, but causes the title to be placed in the name of one to whom the purchaser is under a natural or moral obligation to provide, such as in the

...