The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-07-16
BUTTE News.
FILED THEIR ANSWERS
In the Davis Estate Inheritance
Tax Case.
THE LAW OF SUCCESSION
Will Stands Admitted to Probate In Full
Force and Effect-One Per Cent.
on Property Subject
to Tax

Judge e. N. HARDWOOD, attorney for
John E. Davis as administrator of the
estate of John A. Davis, and James w.
Forbis, attorney for John H. Leyson,
administrator of the estate of Andrew
]. Davis, yesterday presented Judge
Lindsay with their brief upon the ques-
ton of what amount of inheritance tax
can be lawfully levied upon the proper
ty of the estate under the act of the
legislative assembly entitled, IAN act
to establish a tax on direct and collat-
eral inheritances, requests and devises,
to provide for its collection and direct
the disposition of its proceeds" The
brief is as follows:
There are only two methods by
which the property owned by a dece-
dent at the time of his death can be
vested in successor. Such property
must pass either by will of the de-
cedent which vests the property in the
legatee or devisee Immediately upon
the death of the testator,' or it must
statute of succession.
Therefore the property Of the estate
IN question must have been vested in a
successor either by a will of the de-
cedent or by the law of succession of
intestate estates.
'"The learned counsel for the state, in
his brief, admits that If the property
in question was disposed of by will the
amount paid would be the correct
amount Thereby he comedies that if
the will Of decedent admitted to pro-
bate Is in force and effect, then the or
der of the court levying the inheritance
tax on the property of said estate is en-
tirely correct.
THE will of said decedent has been
regularly admitted to probate, and it's
admission to probate is now incontest-
able. 1t has the same office as any will
established and admitted to probate. 1t
vests the property of said estate Eek
oept few minor beQuests) in a brother
of said decedent, namely, John A.
Davis.
But counsel for the state says that
certain stipulations were made by
which certain portions of the property
of said estate were transferred to
others who claimed as heirs of dece-
dent; and he INDUCES in considerable
speculation as to whether or not the
will would have been admitted to pro-
bate except for said compromise stipu-
lations.
THE fact that the devisee and legatee
of said estate under said will, or his
heirs, made certain concessions to other
their descendants, by way of assign
ments to them of portions of said prop
erty, has no bearing upon the question
of the inheritance tax.
when an estate is vested in a de-
visee or legatee, by will, he may, If COM
petent to contract, transfer it, or any
portion of it, to whom he desires, and
may have it delivered, after the pay
ment of the inheritance tax, to the
transferee.
THE supreme court of this state, in
the case of Gelsthorpe VS.. Furnell. after
stating that the right of a legatee or
devisee to property devised or be-
queathed by will, vests Immediately
upon the death of the testator' further
says: Such a right is valuable one.
1t may be sold or mortgaged by the
person to whom it belongs, and no law
can be so changed as to justly deprive
him of it, and bestow it upon another
without the owners consent
Referring to said stipulations men
toned by counsel, we ask what gave
force and effect to them? Can people
get together and stipulate the division
of an estate of a decedent? Or is it by
virtue of the act of the decedent
through his will and testament, or by
the law of succession, that an estate
is divided? When an estate is vested
in some person by will, then he can
make stipulations concerning it, or he
can grant away any portion of it; and
the stipulations mentioned derive their
force and effect from the will which
vested the property in the party stipu-
lating, and vested him with the right
to dispose Of 1t.
THE inheritance tax law does rot
inquire how, or to whom, legatee dis
poses of property devised or bequeathed