Williams v. State
Citation | 125 A. 661 |
Decision Date | 26 June 1924 |
Docket Number | Nos. 1937, 1938.,s. 1937, 1938. |
Parties | WILLIAMS et al. v. STATE. KLOUS et al. v. SAME. |
Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
Transferred from Superior Court, Strafford and Cheshire Counties; Allen, Judge.
Separate appeals by Mary E. Williams and others, executors, and Henry Klous and others, executors, and Henry Klous and others, executors, and Henry Klous and others, executors, from a decree in favor of the State dismissing a petition for abatement of taxes and a decree approving an assessment made by state treasurer. Case transferred from trial term. Case discharged.
Hughes & Doe, of Dover, for executors Williams and others.
Philip H. Faulkner and Roy M. Pickard, both of Keene, for executors Klous and others.
Joseph S. Matthews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Homer Albers, of Boston, Mass., and Snow & Cooper, of Rochester, amici curiae, in opposition to the assessments.
PARSONS, C. J. One case is an appeal from a tax assessment; the other is an appeal from a sefusal to abate an assessment previously made. No question as to procedure is raised. The cases are transferred upon sundry inquiries as to the law in concrete form as applicable to particular facts, which it does not appear to be necessary to examine in detail.
The substance of the questions raised are: (1) Are the provisions of section 1, chapter 37, Laws 1919, in conflict with the Constitution? (2) Should the federal estate tax be considered in assessing the state tax? (3) (a) Are shares of stock in nonresident corporations and deposits in banks outside the state or (b) Liberty Bonds to be considered in making the assessment?
The main controversy is as to the power of the Legislature to enact section 1, c. 37, Laws. 1919. After the adoption of the constitutional amendment in 1903 (part 2, art. 6), empowering the Legislature to impose taxes not only upon polls and estates, but also upon other classes of property, including franchises and property when passing by will or inheritance, the Legislature in 1905 (Laws 1905. c. 40) adopted "An act imposing a tax on collateral legacies and successions."
Section 1 of the act was subsequently amended so that at the date of the legislation in 1915 it read as follows:
The section now under consideration is:
From a comparison of the two sections, it appears that by the act of 1919 property passing to brothers and sisters of the decedent upon which no tax was previously imposed is declared subject to a tax of 5 per cent. of its value and a tax is imposed upon property passing to other relatives also previously free from tax; the rate varying according to the value of the property passing with exemptions of considerable amount in certain cases.
The amendment of 1903 probably resulted from the decision in Curry v. Spencer, 61 N. H. 624, 60 Am. Rep. 337 (1882) that the imposition of an inheritance tax was not within legislative power under the Constitution as it then existed. Under the amendment, c. 40, Laws of 1905, was enacted. Section 1 of the act except for verbal changes immaterial in the present inquiry is identical with the law of 1915 above quoted. This act was sustained in Thompson v. Kidder, 74 N. H. 89, 65 Atl. 392, 12 Ann. Cas. 948, and is not now assailed by the appellants. The question raised is as to the validity of the classification by the value of the property passing and according to relationship to the decedent made in the act of 1919. No question as to the effect of the substantial exemptions has been raised or considered.
The state claims that the exaction by the state is an excise tax, if it is a tax; that in effect rather than a tax it is a provision for the disposition of property all of which belongs to the state at the death of the owner.
Thompson v. Kidder, 74 N. H. 89, 94, 65 Atl. 392, 395 (12 Ann. Cas. 948).
"All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights, among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property." Bill of Rights, art. 2.
If in 1784 the power of testamentary disposition was no part of the conception of the property right, the state's contention would be well founded. The state has furnished nothing and nothing is found to sustain fie idea that any one claimed or believed in 1784 that when the owner died his property belonged to the state or its surviving members. The power to dispose of property by will was declared by the provincial statutes, which also provided for its disposition among the next of kin in case there was no will. Act May 14, 1718, 2 N. H. Laws (Batch.) 295.
"The Liberties of the Massachusetts Colonie in New England" of 1641, at a time when practically all of New Hampshire in existence was in union with Massachusetts, contained the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Standard Oil Co. v. Fox
...following cases holding such Acts unconstitutional: In re Opinion of Justices, 82 N. H. 561, 138 A. 284 (income tax); Williams v. State, 81 N. H. 341, 351, 125 A. 661 (inheritance tax); Cope's Estate, 191 Pa. 1, 43 A. 79, 45 L. R. A. 316, 71 Am. St. Rep. 749 (inheritance tax); State ex rel.......
-
Cyers Woolen Co. v. Town of Gilsum
...void amendment, even if there are words of express repeal, unless it is clear the legislature intended such repeal." Williams v. State, 81 N. H. 341, 353, 125 A. 661, 667. The doctrine is reaffirmed in Foster v. Farrand, 81 N. H. 448, 451, 128 A. II. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiff t......
-
Doe v. State
...how often periodic review hearings must be held—that kind of line-drawing is a task for the legislature. See Williams v. State, 81 N.H. 341, 353, 125 A. 661 (1924), overruled in part on other grounds by Amoskeag & c. Co. v. Dartmouth College, 89 N.H. 471, 200 A. 786 (1938) ("But the court c......
-
In re Rosing's Estate
...32 S.W.2d 281; State ex rel. Pearson v. Railroad Co., 215 Mo. 479, 114 S.W. 956; In re Knight's Estate, 261 Pa. 537, 104 A. 765; Williams v. State, 125 A. 661; Admr. v. Commonwealth, 196 Ky. 318, 244 S.W. 781; Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 378, 74 L.Ed. 917; Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Mc......