United States v. Marion Trust Co.

• Citation: 143 F. 301
• Decision Date: 02 January 1906
• Docket Number: 1,177.
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. MARION TRUST CO.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

143 F. 301

UNITED STATES v. MARION TRUST CO.

No. 1,177.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 2, 1906

Jesse M. La Follette, for the United States.

Morris M. Townley, for defendant in error.

Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges.

GROSSCUP Circuit Judge.

Section 29 of the Act of June 13th, 1898 (30 Stat. 464, c. 448 (U.S Comp. St. 1901, p. 2308)), known as the War Revenue Act makes subject to duty or tax, any executor, administrator, or other person having in charge or trust, any legacy or distributive share arising from personal property, exceeding the sum of ten thousand dollars, passing, after the passage of that act, from any person possessed of such property either by will or intestate law, to any person-- the tax being graduated according to the amount of the property thus passing, and the degree of consanguinity of the person to whom it passes.

April 12th, 1902, this act (32 Stat. 97, c. 500, Sec. 8 (U.S. Comp St. Supp. 1905, p. 447)) was repealed, the repealing act containing a saving clause to the effect, that all taxes or duties imposed by the previous act should be a lien and charge subject, as to lien, charge, collection and otherwise, to the provisions of Section 30 of the Act repealed; the provision of Section 30 being that such tax or duty should be a lien and charge upon the property of every person dying as aforesaid, for twenty years, or until the same, within that period, should be fully paid.

The action in the court below was by plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, administrator of the estate of one Mason J. Osgood, to recover the tax laid under this War Revenue law of 1898. Osgood died intestate September 10th, 1900, two years after the act was passed, and two years before it was repealed. But owing to a dispute between certain persons who claimed to be his heirs, and to the pendency of certain unsettled claims against the estate, the estate remained in process of administration, and was not distributed until after the repealing act. And pending administration, no effort was made by the government to assess the tax upon the estate.

The sole question thus presented is whether, prior to the repealing act of 1902, a tax or duty under the act of 1898 had been 'imposed' upon the distributive shares in process of 'passing' from the intestate to the heirs the contention of the government being that the tax is upon the 'passing...