The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-11-28
FATAL FLAW FOUND
The Inheritance Tax Law Of 1901 Is
Declared Illegal by the
Supreme Court. 49,.
In Trying to Remedy One Defect
the Legislature Had Created
Another. ST.

A decision by Judge Brown Of the su-
prem court, handed down to-day, gives
the quietus to the inheritance tax law OF
1901. 1t is held unconstitutional because
it operates unequally. BY an error in
drafting it. the law taxes the whole value
Of collateral inheritances when they eX-
coed $1,000, but when the inheritance Is In
a lineal descendant only, the excess over
$1,000 IS taxed.
The mistake was discovered and the ex-
ira session endeavored to correct the mis-
take, but made another in so doing. The
case decided to-day was carried up from
Ramsey county in order to definitely settle
legisla ture, which is expected to pass a
valid law.
The syllabus Of the decision is as fol-
lows: .-.,.
State Of Minnesota eS rel Jeanette It. Frye, as
Administrative Of the estate Of Stina johnson,
deceased, respondent. vs.. Edmund w. Basille,
as judge Of probate, Ramsey county, appellant.
Chapter 255. Laws 1901. known Us the i'll
herltance tax law. Is held unconstitutional and
void. because it operates unequally between
>collateral, and also as between collateral and
lineal descendants. Transfers of property TO the
former are taxed to the full value. when such
value exceeds S.. 600: whereas to the nneal de-
scendants the tax is imposed only upon the excess
over and above fixed valuation Of So, OOO Drew
vs.. Tiff. 70 Mimi. 175, followed and applied.
Judgment affirmed. Brown, J.
Agents Lose
In q Hennepin county case involving q
real estate commission of $72S for nego-
tfating a sale of timber land in Mile Laos
county, the trial court is sustained and the
commission Is held not to be earned. The
syllabus says:
NJ. s. Rutherford and H. e. Barnum. co-part-
ners as NJ. S. Rutherford and Co., appellants,
vs.. George L. Simpson ct al. respondents.
In an action to recover a commission alleged
to have been earned by plaintiffs on the sale
Of certain real property under contract with
DEFENDANTS the record is examined and 1t is held:
First that the evidence is sufficient to sustain
the verdict of the jury. and second, that there
were no errors in the admission exclusion Of
evidence, or in the charge of the court to the
jury, in its refusal to charge.
Order affirmed. Brown, ].
Ramsey County Cases
Two cases involving the same transac-
ton. sale of mining property, are decided
in a third opinion by Judge Brown. The
plaintiff secures a commission of $1,785,
earned by one Griffen and later assigned to
him, but disputed by Griffin's partners in
the deal. The syllabus says: -.
Harry Hanson, respondent, vs.. Diamond Mining
Iron company, respondent, and Frederick E.
Foster and VIM. j. Tully, partners as Foster
& FULLY, appellants. 1.-TWO cases)
First-Any evidence which tends directly to
contradict the allegations Of pleading to
which it is interposed is admissible under
general denial. Matters in confession and avoid
ance must be specially pleaded. but it is unneces.
sary to SO plead facts which directly contradict
the allegations and proofs Of the opposite party.
Second-Evidence examined and held to sustain
the findings of the trial court.
Order affirmed. Brown, J.