The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-11-29 00:00:00

DISPUTED LEGACY DUTY.

In the Court of Exchequer, before the Lord Chief Bunn
and Bayous Brsoi•ell, Pigott, and Pollock, the eau.° of
The Attorney-CW. 1,1 o (lea,.' has bren heard, and tr
an Information flied by the Atiorney.O. n -cal to Pec ver legacy
duty upun theereversionary alai,s Los i mid (opining the
e of the respective Watt of Thomas Wood Cleave end
Charity Ann Wood Cleave deceased.

It appeared that one Thomas Wood by his will be-
queathed a sum of money to Charity Ann Cleave, a
stranger in blood, for life, w ith remainder in equal shares
to her children on their attaining the age of 21. The tee
tetor died in 183 i. Charity Ann Cleave, the tenant for
life, was the wile of Benjamin Cleave, rind survived until
the year 1070. She had seven children, all of whom at-
tained the age of 21 divine her lifeline; two of them died
in the years 1849 and 1866 respectively, and upon their
deaths, their lather, as their sole next of kin, became
entitled to their reversionary interests in the 2-7ths of
the fond. The father died in 1867, having by his will .
bt queethed his residuary estate to cert legatees
therein named. The executors of his will paid legacy
duty upon each residuary eetate, which is
eluded the value at the then market price of the
day of the revertionary interests of his deceased
children. Upon the death of the mother, which
happened in 1870, these reversionary interests fell
into possession, and, inasmuch as the father had
not taken out administration to the two did tree de-
ceased, it became necessary for some one interested
tinder his will to do ro in order to give a valid
discharge to the executors of the original testator,
Thomas Wood. The present deflmclant having taken
out such administration, the Crown claimed legacy
duty from him upon the passing of the childrens' in-
terests to their father under the 2nd section of the
Legacy Duty Act, 36 Geo. 3., cap. 52., secs. 2 knd 6.
Tue claim watt resisted by the defentlent on the gyonnd
that the reversionary interests passed te the father as
" successions " within the meaning of the 14th sec. of
Succession Duty Act, 16 and 17 Vic.' cap. 51, and
that, therefore, by sec. 18 of the same Act, one duty
having been already paid, no further duty could be
properly claimed in respect of such succession.
The,Attorney-General argued that the devolntions of
the chddrena' reversionary interests to their father upon
their respective deaths intestate were " legacies "
strictly within the meaning of the Legacy Duty Act,
and that this Act being in full force, the Succession
Duty Act applied solely to real estate passing by will
and real and personal estate passing upon a death by
v.rtue of some settlement made inter viros—that, in
fact, the two Acts of Parliament were dietinct as
regards the subjectamatter of taxation, and that the
present claim being made in respect of a " legacy "
under the Legacy Duty Act, which contains no exemp-
tion from liability to duty upon each devolution, the
terms of the 14th sea of the Succession Daty Act
did not apply.
Mr. Kingdon (for the defendant) maintained that
the 18th lire. of the Succession Duty Act extunpted
from double du 7, the transmission of the same pro-
perty tlAngh a person entitled in reversion ; that the
transmission upon which a payment of duty was
now sought was • success:on within the term of tbe
14th sec. of the Succession Doty Act, and one duty
having been already paid- viz, legacy duty—under
the fathers' will, no further dnty was payable.
Mr. Kerslake replied on behalf of the Crown.
Their Lordships were unanimously of opinion that
the Crown was entitled to judgment.
Judgment for the Crown accordingly.