The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-11-16
IN THE SUPREME COURT
The Constitutionality of the In
heritance Tax Sustained.
JUDGE LESLIE REVERSED
w. II. Gelsthorpe. Treasurer of Cascade
County. Took an Appeal = Judge
Hunt Hands Down an opin-
ion in the Matter


to-day rendered an opinion upon the
constitutionality of the inheritance tax
law. passed by the last legislature
which came before the court on an ap-
peal from the decision uf Judge Leslie
of Cascade county. and was entitled
w. III. Gelsthorpe. county treasurer.
against Della NJ. Furnell.
The last legislative assembly passed
an act establishing an inheritance tax
nn all property which should pass by
VIII or by the lntcstate laws; the law
also provided that the tax should be-
levied upon all estates which have
been probated before. and shall be dis
tributed after the passage and taking
effect of this act:" all estates of less
value than s, 500 Were exempted from
the tax.
on May &. 1896, Matthew Furnell.
citizen of Cascade county. died. leaving
his property. which greatly exceeded
$500. To his wife In her own right and
as trustee for his minor children. The
necessary legal steps We're had prepara-
tory 10 administration. and ON July
~, 1897, after the inheritance tax Was
In force. the district court ordered "A
distribution OF the estate. Before this
order was made. however. the county
treasurer TOOK steps 10 collect the IN,
hcritance tax. Payment was refused
and thereupon this proceeding was in
stitutcd by the county treasurer for the
payment ~ the taxes.
pom tne trial IL was ufsed py 'he
ueienuah, that tne inheritance TAX at
"mp's 10 ihposs oax upon property
as uistihsuished ifoin 'he right OF priv
l'eee ., suc.essi"n' ,ha, u the TAX i'h-
rs.n " nov upon ,he properly pu, on
the rlsn' ~ su'.ssS,"", ,ne "s" .n'"nlns
PoMer " h'li,eu III US rish' !" YAK oniy
sueh p''pe,F az neuien W s'esiuh
~ ar.cie y, "i ,hr s,a,e c"hsoi.u,i"h,
anu .ha, .ne az, ",s'uros anu - issns .,'s
vested rights. Inc court he'a .hat ths
ac' was 'ohsu'ut,"hai as :" es,a'es "i
pers"hs wn" iinsn, u's st'.r NJ isN
t"nh '"so,, W, 'nat Mn'.' ."e
ceu'n, u'es e'o,e Ma''n fLune oas
oi appro'ai VI ,nis a..-'ne 'aN oouIa
10, oe ."iiecteu az 'ne Jaw Nss IN
Nanu, IN. county Neasurer appeai.u.
Justice hunt IN MOST e'sno,at.
treatment oi tne aues,'"hs piese"'eu'
ai,sr 9uo.ne a, iens.n l,um .sosn. m
,n''eu o'a'.s an" s,s'e ".'is''"s ".
nlncri'an.e ,ak.s, noius WA, uis .,s
'Aa'' Iuie iesai"'hs '"'S ,aA 'a' s''
u rs one upon sne rieni W i.e.hs p,"p-
I'y oy way o' inhsri,nhce Ia'n'r IMAM
upon the property Nseii, says.
Inc ihtehtioi Oh the iegiSa'u'e VIZ
To exact certain premium l"t tn'
.n)oyment oi ciNii risht secut"" uu-
der the laws oi succcssion' lhe ie"son-
ing oi the many cases uphoi1ing suSn
laws pr.ceeus upon the hluispu'a"'e
proposition that tne STATE mas the
power-uniers "ehied u py cahs','u-
tlonal problpitioh-'" 'eguiate ,h' utN-
niution ana distriputioh oi an n,es-
tates property, anu eIual "u'h"fl's
10 limit the power "f tes'ator 10 U
pueath ms Pfop'ry 10 M"",h y"
pi.ases' st"'' VS.. pa"s"p'' :" .'"'
~, m =.
%nchciaries unuer WINS anu noiis '
generally must Know tnht statues may
consntutionaliy liiflt the l"M.r "i uir-
position and acquiring OF propei ~.
The power !" uisp"se "' proP.lN W
viii Is neither natural nor a con-
stitutiohal one. ut nep'hus Mn"''s
upon statute ana may n' cohl,Ii'.
taken away OF inliteh an. issrii'eu:
IN Mhuie or IN lart, Ny tle "h's.atui"
Minot vs.. winthrop ioz Mass, ii'.
The inittn states rupre'ne 'ou.e .
has sustained such taA-hot az up"ii
property. but as upon "A right To take
property. Mayer vs. hilnna' now
iyo: v. ;. vs.. PERKINS, los = %,
The most exact rule u ihat Mhich
regards the tax as upon the right to
rscclv" property, rather than tne tight
To dispose of u. such IS the eSpiahh-
lion of the nature ot the taA az given
by Dos Passos In his valuable b"ok on
inheritance Taxes, page 81 ana as
stated In III" Following clear language
by Judge Hurkeu OF the ONO supreme
count, I'm state ex rel. Schwartz Vs. FER
fis. 81 Ohio statutes, 3li;
" In View of the authorities cited. "
must be conceded that the general as :
sembly has the power To pass an inheri-
tnnce tax for purposes OF general reve-
nue.. unless prohibited by the cpnstitu-
tion of our state. Properly understood.
II is not the right to transmit, but the
tight and privilege 10 receive that Is
taxed, The right To dispose oi property
during the lifetin" of the owner cannot
be separated from the property its ".
and therefore 10 tax the right OF dls-
posal by contract IN the lifetime of the
owner. even though To take clfect at his
death. Is to- tax the property its"if But
the right 10 dispose of the property pS
viii or descent taking effect after the
death Of the owner, Is not 50 clearly
connected with the right pt property,
and II is not So clear that such right
a