The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-07-04
INHERITANCE TAX
Law IS WIPED OUT
BY SUPREME B R: COURT
s9JS3G
The 1902 Measure Is Declared
Unconstitutional, as Has
Long Been Kpected-Tax
Excessive.

Ol yesterday Is one Which, uHqddlillSoly
proclaims the Inheritance tax law of
1902 to be invalid afor the reason that
| its purport to make the rate of taxa
| ton 10 per cent, or double the con-
stttutional limitation, in the case Of col
lateral heirs and other parties"
This action of the court will create
but little surprise, for since the pas
sage of the law legal authorities have
| joined almost unanimously in predict
ing for it the fate which has now been
fulfilled. SRI
The question was presented to the
supreme court in a case involving the
estate Of the late Sol Smith Russell,
actor, who was resident of Minneap-
oils. Mrs. Alice A. Russell, widow of
| the testator and executrix Of his es-
| tate, applied to- Judge Harvey, of the
| probate court of sHennepin county, in
the course of the administration OF the
estate, for distribution of the residue
| of the property to her as sole devisee.
| This application the court denied on
| the ground that the estate was still
| liable to an inheritance tax of $575.55
under the law Of 1902.
An application of the district court
resulted in writ of fnandamus, which
was appealed by the judge of probate.
| The supreme court affirms the order
| Of the district court and in so doing
says: 9T-
| THE statute imposes a tax of one
| half of l per cent as to widows and
lineal heirs, and of 10 per cent in all
other cases. This is a clear and ex-
press violation of the mandate OF the
| constitution at'such tax shall not ex-
! coed per cent"
contention on the part of the ap-
! pellant that the law was at least valid
| to the extent of S per cent tax is dis
! posed of by the supreme court in the
! following words:
''The court has no more power to
| read into the statute a. rate of taxation
which will be within the limitation OF
! the constitution than it has to decree
an inheritance tax in advance of any
! legislation on the subject"
The opinion in this case was written
| by Chief Justice Start, who declares
that the inheritance law is in its en-
tirety unconstitption and void.
/ He Is5Nct:Liabie. j .5e
tn In a. decision, which will be of con-
| siderable, local interest, the court over
rules, Judge. yaggard, of the Ramsey
] county district court in the case of w.
| F. Hunt, receiver, against Hugh Burns
t-et AL. appellants, which is one of the
sor called Allemannia.bafik cases ~
The action was brought in the dis
| trfct court by Mr.. Hunt, as receiver of
1.-the bank, to enforce against the heirs
and next of kin to Hugh Burns, de-
ceased,9 a. liability upon five shares of
bstock in the bank which had been held
| by the deceased, Under direction from
| Judge Jaggard the jury returned a YER
dict for the plaintiff. "
| The defense commended that any
J claim based upon am assessment. On the
| stock had expired by reason of the fact
| that it was not presented to the pro-
] bate court for allowance at the time Of
| the administration Of the estate, and
| ths supreme court holds that this fail
/ ure4 defea ted any rights of action that
the plaintiff. may have had.i III nnottRV
Other Decisions. o,a.. -
r. Other decisions handed doWn-yester-
| day were as follows:
| In re Receiyership of the Minnesota
| Thresher Manufacturing Co. Theodore
tG Rs Converse; receiver Of the Minnesota
hg Thresher Manufacturing Co. respondent,
4 II vs.. u. n Morgan ct al. appellants.
| Charles Kleopfert, appellant VS.. City of
| Minneapolis, respondent.
Order reversed. - Start, J.
Frank T. White. respondent, vs. James
Collins. s--oeltanfd
| Order affirmed1f . r. Start, j.
Mary A. Hadley ana Martha B. Carpen-
| ter, respondents. eNvs. Oliver P. Bour-
| deaux ct al, DESCENDANTS Oliver P. Bour-
! deaux. appellant so
Order affirmed" Brown. j.
M. r. Everett. respondent vs. Patrick
O'Leary, appellant.
| Order reversedtJ 81, Collins, j.
Michael E. Scott. appellant. vs. Eastern
Railway. Company of, Minnesota, re-
sol
Mccormick Harvesting Machine Company.
respondent, VII William Fields. appel
~ Collins, J.
Order reversed and new trial granted.
Michael P. Ryan. respondent vs.. Dewitt
| G. Ruff ct al. appellants.
Judgment reversed. Lewis, J.
! State of Minnecota Elk rel. Joseph Vessen,
| as executor of the estate of Mary A.
! Molitor deceased. appellant. VS. C. G.
Eberhard, as County Auditor of HouS-
| ton County, Minnesota respondent.
| Judgement reversed. Lewis, ].
| State ex rel e. H. Pope. Bank Examiner.
| plaintiff VS.. Germania Bank, defendant;
| E. Crostadt. claimant, appellant, VS..
| Gustav. WilliuS, as Receiver of said
| Germania Bank respondent.
| Order affirmed. tr Lewis, j.
| George Scheifert ct al, respondents. vs..
John Briegel ct al. defendants; Swan
RydSen eft AL. appellants Three cases.