Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-03-14
Suit Over Collateral In
heritanCe Levy Argued
Before Errors Judges.
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
DEFENDER OF MEASURE
Ex-Surrogate Russell Started
Action Which Resulted in
Attack on Statute.
Especial TO the Newark STAR ]

Especial TO the Newark STAR
TRENTON, March ia suit Of the
greatest Importance to New Jersey, In
yolving as it does the taxing right Of
the State, was argued today before the
Court of Errors and Appeals. when the
attack made on the collateral inheri-
tance tax was taken under considera-
tion. On the outcome of the litigation
will depend thousands of dollars in
revenue.
Appearing as the questioner Of the
statute, the constitutionality of which
is assailed, was Robert H. McCarter,
former attorney general. Defending
the law appeared Attorney-General
Wilson. assisted by Theodore Backes
and Bennett Van Syckel as special coun-
sci.
In the suit of Dixon against Russell
the constitutionality of the statute Is
directly called in question. Mr.. Nc
Carter appeared as attorney for Will
lam p Dixon and other executors OF
the estate of Martha L. Fiske Collord,
seeking to set aside an assessment on
certain shares of stock in the Standard
on Company, upon which levy Of
George E. Russell, of Essex county
The circumstances under which the
case arose are in themselves unusual
Mrs. Collord, resident of Rhode Island,
died in Cairo. Egypt, January 20. 1908.
On July 20 of that year her will was
offered for probate in New York city
Aas that of a nonresident testatrix and
letters Of administration were issued
4 "a
estate in this State, but held 1,l50
shares of stock in the Standard Oil
Company of New Jersey. This COM
many refused to transfer the stock to
the heirs on the ground thar it might
be subject to the Inheritance tax and
the executors applied to Mr.. Russell,
then the Essex surrogate, to levy a
tax on the shares, with the object of
then bringing suit to determine the
constitutionality of the law.
Appraisers named by the surrogate
fxed the assessment Of the stock at
S27 800. and the tax was accordingly
levied and forwarded to the state
COMPTROLLER. who demanded payment OF
the executors. The latter obtained
writ of certiorari to test the validity OF
the assessment. and on hearing before
the Supreme Court the assessment was
,,nfeld and the writ dismissed. 1t was
= on this ruling that the case was carried
to the Court of Errors and Appeals.
In today's proceedings oral arguments
were made by the attorneys on both
sides, and in addition exhaustive briefs
were filed with the court.
The attack on the law is based upon
eight general principles assigning error
or the part Of the Supreme Court In dis
missing the writ Of certiorari. 1t is al
legged that there Is no warrant or au-
thoritv in law for making the assess
rhent: that chapter 22S of the laws of
1906. under which the assessment was
nade. violates the provision of the
state Constitution requiring every law
to embrace only one subject which shall
be expressed in the title; that the pro-
visions of this chapter are broader than
the title of the act; that the Essex sur
rogate had no authority to make the
assessment; that under the law, as 1t
existed at the time the assessment was
made, there was no person authorized
to make such levy.
Tn their brief upholding the law the
ATTORNEYS fop>the State attack the con-
tentions Of the opposition, arguing the
right of the State to make such an as
sessment and declaring that the pro-
ceedings were conducted by the proper
authorities Their position is fortified
nv numerous citations of other decisions
in similar cas-
state Files Its Brief.
In the argument Mr.. McCarter ad-
vanced a new reason, attacking the act
on the ground that it contemplates a
property tax by method which is
NOT uniform, and therefore unconsti-
,,tional The States attorneys answer
this by citing the law that the oppo-
sition must be bound by its original
assignment of errors. THE arguments
against the law are then taken up one
by one and refuted
RI is pointed out that while the orig
,nal inheritance tax laws Of New Jer-
sev were modelled after the New York
laws. there are important differences
which do not make the decisions in
New Yorlxt of binding Importance in
this state. 1t is also recited that ON
Anril 0. 1908, prior to the application
of the executors to the surrogate Of
Essex county to levy the tax, but after
the death of Martha T. Fiske Collord,
the Legislature amended the earlier
act to read:
.,Tbat the ordinary or/the Orphans
Court Of the county in which the real
property of a NONRESIDENT decedent IS
situate. or the Orphans Court OF the
county in which the decedent was
resident at the time of his death, or
IN case OF a non resident decedent
leaving no real property within this
state. the Orphans Court of the coun-
~ in which the surrogate shall first
assume jurisdiction shall have 5uris-
diction to hear and determine all ques-
tions in relation to tax arising unuer
the provisions of this act
1t is argued that since the executors
4 applied to former Surrogate Russeii 10
levy the assessment he became the sur