The sun., 1910-07-09
JERSEYS SUCCESSION LEVY
FatLT ~ TITLE NAY COST THE
STATE NEARLY S.JOO,O
Highest Courts Decision iU Celiord WIN
Case wni Affect Many Others Cot
lateral inheritance raN Law Not
In Itself Unconstitutional. says Court.


In Itself Unconstitutional. says Court.
TRESToS. y. }. July s-A defec- in the
title in the collateral inheritance tax Law
of 1919 may cost the state Of New Jersey
nearly half a million dollars. under a
decision handed down by the Court Of
Errors and Appeals to-day. In the case
under review the court sets aside a tax Of
81. 800 levied by the Surrogate Of Essex
county upon tSS2 OOO Of the estate of Mrs
Arthur 7 Fiske Collord Of Newport. X. /.
who died in Cairo. Egypt, January "a
lp0s Her will was probated IN New York
The tax was levied on $50 shares of
stock in the Standard Oil Company of
New Jersey disposed Of by Mrs Collord's =
will IN various institutions coming under
the provisions of the collateral inheritance
tax law The Surrogate. in accordance
with the act Of 1919. assessed a transfer
tax upon this property
The Supreme Court sustained the tax,
hut the Court OF Errors held that the words
-an act to tax leRacies. contained IN the
title Of the act. do not express that the
object Of the enactment. 50 far as il re
later to legaci-S. Is the imposition Of a
tax upon the transfer OF ths property
which is the subject of b-luest The
state Constitution requires that tho
object of every law shall be expressed
in the title. and failure to do this was held
10y the court ia he fatal TO the part OF th..
act seeking TO imPos. a transfer tax
Incidentally counsel for the Collord
executorr contended that the entire
theory upon which the New Jersey coll
lateral inheritance tax law is based ~
L. -.
impose a property tax without complying
with the provision of the Constitution
that all property shall be as=essed for
PURPOSES OF taxation at Its true value
10y uniform methods should the court
fail to Accept this view it was submitted
that ~ a Succession tax affecting lega-
cies the validity and amount OF which
were required To be determined by the
laws % a foreign jurisdiction. the act
must fall Neither view Vas accepted
by the Court - Errors and Appeals in
who's opinion the right II the State u
tax the ~uCCs~@iOn To property lOcatsAd
IN this state Of "a non resident deC,adent
y clearly upheld In this view of the cass
the decision - believed to sustain tbs.
present collateral inheritance tax act
passed ia 1919
Chief Justice GtImmera who wrote the
opinion. said that a general miAConstruc-
tion seemed To have heen placed upon the
i. ,,. 1917 - ~ ~, -, " =, ~ .'-,-' .
aSAls' Sh our okaus n'Is7'-'i oi f.r,eh county,
h Shcn Eusr FkasN 'AA ~HH aIso So
go, '"i' ""P''~~' WI"
"'e' ""S''N sam
From What Wa- said during the arRu-
men,- Of goun-el in I'M, pr...nt ca.e !, vo,,Id
...,, ~, on, o,,,,.or !, ,hs N.i,.,,, -,
4. ,,nd.,.,,.,,J h,. -, ., ,h, h., -, -
,o,,,,, -, ,,,. -, -, a.. ,..'',,-
80, ,,.' - 'i' r.'' ~ W Wv 49, p' ~
VI w 70 - @ ,le
y" P."p-''s !" H'-n VA ms H'"'" OF non
r~"heht hr' "h"h' Su'h sup pposfon
l. not lu-tihed hy anything 10 De found IN
the. opinion
TN the contrary our drCi CiSiOn j. based
upon the expressed assumption that the sue
c~--lOn to shares 81 sto~k in N.w Jersey
oorporation may 10 taxed by ;he state
Iagislatur We do not doubt the power
Of IN. stat. to i,ppo-. a .ucce--ion IA,
her. ,b,. -,,,,.-.t,, i. h,- ,e,son n, d..tb
,,s,,,,, 49,, -, 49,. ,,,,,i,,l. -, ,.o ,t.-
-, -, 49,, ,',,,',,,,,. -