Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-07-30
DECISION.
Collateral Inheritance law Constitutional
Exemption in Every Legacy.

A decision by the full court upon oues
lions arising under what is known as tbe
collateral inheritance law, which was en-
acted by the last Legislature, and which ba,
been vexiDg the courts of probate through.
out the State since its enactment. wa,
handed down Friday afternoon. The case
in which the decision /, rendered il from
Penobscot county, and Is that of State OF
Maine, appellan. from decree of the Judge
OF Probate, vs. George II. Hamlin, exec.
utor. AT the hearing before the probate
court in that county, the judge of probate
assuming the law Of 1893 to be constitu.
tional, decided that the $500 exemption wa.
from each collateral inheritor, and not one
exemption from the body of the estate
From this decree the State appealed. On
the appeal the appeallee claimed that the act
was unconstitutional. and the State claimed
that the $500 exemption in section of the
act should be one exemption from the BODY
of the estate.
The decision of the law court is briefly
stated in the rescript, as follows:
L. Section l, of chapter 146 of the law.
OF 1893, imposing tx on collateral inheri
tances, is not tax upon real and personal
estate, within the meaning of Article TX
sec. OF the constitution Of Maine, but i.
an excise, clearly within the constitutional
powers of the Legislature to impose.
2. The act is not in conflict with the
l4th amendment to the constitution of the
United States.
4. The $500 exemption provided in
section l of the act is not one exemption
from the corpus of the estate, but is an ex-
emption of that sum from each and every
legacy or share given or descending to per.
sons within the classes subject to the ex-
else.
The opinion is by Judge Strout, and is a
very able and elaborate exposition of the
law. The decision in this case is one of
great interest and Importance, settling as i,
does like questions which have been pre-.
sented to the law court from nearly every
county in the State.
The question whether the exemption Of
$500 in the first section, is an exemption
from the corpus of the estate, or a several
exemption of that sum from each portion
of the estate passing by will or descent to
persons outside the exempted classes il
raised by the appeal. A careful examina-
ton of the statutes satisfies us that the Leg
islature intended the exemption to apply to
each taker within the class subject to the
duty. The language Of section is that call
property which shall pass by will
or by the intestate laws of this State
other than to or for the use of the father, >
etc. shall be liable "to tax OF
Q l-2 per cent. of its value above the sum
of $780," ETC., and any grantee under q
conveyance made during the grantor's life
to take effect after his death, "shall be
liable for all such taxes" 1t is difficult to
construe this language to mean other than
that such taker, subject to the tax, shall be
liable upon the amount received, above
$500. grantee is made liable to "sucf
taxes" What taxes. Plainly, IL per
cent. upon the amount received in excess
of $500. This construction is greatly
added by the second section which
in dealing with limited estates to the
excepted classes, whether including all
or part of decedent's estate) and re
mainder to the taxable class, provides fol-
an appraisal value of the limited estate, and
when that is ascertained, that value, "to-
gether with the sum of $780," is to be de-
Quoted from the value of such property land
the remainder becomes subject to the tax
or duty. This provision is plainly incon-
sistent with the claim that the $500 exemp-
ton is to be taken once for all from the
corpus of decedent's entire estate. The
Legislature undoubtedly intended the same
rule to apply in both sections. We think
therefore that the decree of the probate
court was correct and the entry must be.