Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1910-07-21
INTERESTING CASE
WAS ARGUED

An interesting case involving, the
payment of collateral inheritance tax
ON large sums was argued before Judge
Evans Saturday.
The argument was based on a petit
tion presented to court by the register
and recorder asking for citation to
show cause why collateral inheritance
tax, alleged to be overdue, should not
be paid on certain sums involved in
the estate of John r. Bennett. r. S.
zimmerman and Grant Herring repre-
sented the Commonwealth James
! Scarlet, II. NJ. Hinckley and Ralph
Kisner appeared for the respondent.
The argument was opened by r. S.
zimmerman. 1t was represented that
John r. Bennett died June 21, 1905;
that his last will and testament was
made at Paris in 1903 and was admit
ed to probate here in 1905.
The will bequeathed the entire estate
to Ellen Coleman Bennett, the wife,
subject to the payment of $25, 900 to
Sarah Craig Bennett, sister of the test
ator.
Mr.. Scarlet's answer admitted the
facts.
The argument was taken up by Mr..
Herring, who spoke for over an hour,
citing numerous authorities to prove
that the collateral inheritance tax is
due not only on the $25, 900, which by
the terms of the will were to go to the
sister, Sarah Craig Bennett, but also
on Sl30, 600, which were paid to eight
other relatives of John r. Bennett by
the wife of the testator, in order to Sc
cure release when they threatened to
contest the probating of the will.
The ground on which the contest
was theatened was that John r. Ben
nett at the time of his death was not
resident of Montour county. Had the
contestants won they were prepared
to carry the contest into New York
state The final outcome, under the cir
cumstances alleged, would have been
that Mrs. Bennett would have receiv.
ed only a dover. The result of it all
was that the widow agreed TO pay
Sl30, 600 to secure a release, which per-
mitted the will to stand.
Sarah Craig Bennett joined with the
brothers and sisters in the release in
consideration of the payment of $780,
600. Mr.. Herring contended that the
release does not deprive the Common
wealth of the collateral inheritance
tax on the $50, 900 to be paid to the
sister by the terms of the will; that
it accrued Immediately on the death
of decedent and that its payment can
in no way be evaded. That the legacy
was vested in Sarah Craig Bennett, the
sister, was confirmed by the release.
The State is made one of the benetici-
aries; along with the sister it becomes
vested of right to a portions per
cent.-of the legacy, and the sister had
no power to convey away the rights
of the Commonwealth, although she
herself surrendered all claim to the
S25, 900.
In conclusion Mr.. Herring cited
authorities to show that under all the
circumstances prevailing the State had
right TO five per cent of the $3.50, 600
paid out by Mrs. Bennett to secure re-
lease and which thereby because vest
ed in collaterals.
Mr.. Hinckley of attorneys for the
respondent took the position that Mrs.
Bennett in order TO avoid contest paid
the entire amount-Sl30,0 000-out of
her own pocket; that this sum also
paid Sarah Craig Bennett, the sister,
who joined in the contest and did not
receive the $685. 900 provided by the
will. The case, he contended, does not
come in under the act of 1887 quoted
by Mr.. Herring, as none of the $780,
900 was bequeathed by the decedent-
did not pass from his hands-but was
paid out i'll compromise as above ex-
planned. He cited authorities at length
to show that money paid out to col
lateral heirs to settle dispute is not
subject to Inheritance tax.
Sarah Craig Bennett took nothing
under the will. The $25, 900, therefore,
that the will provided should be paid
to her. like the S130. 600, is exempt
| from collateral inheritance tax.
Mr.. Scarlet spoke briefly. He took
the broad ground that no collateral in
heritance tax is due, as the estate went
! to lineal heir.
The court took the papers.
CIJ0CTER DU IHIIThIINIC