Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1916-04-04
court DECISION
IS IN FAVOR OF
mrs. HARTMAN
State Of Idaho Cannot Col
lect Transfer Tax From
Widow of the Late Rail
road King.

In q decision handed down last
might the supreme court quashed the
alternate writ of mandate issued in
the test case OF the state OF Idaho, ex
rel Joseph H. Peterson, attorney gen.
eral, versus r. H. Dunlap, probate
Judge of Ada county. Mary w. Harri-
man, widow OF the late e. III. Harri-
man and the Oregon Short Line Rail-
way company. The case is dismissed
by the order and direction Of Idaho's
supreme tribunal and what Is the final
chapter in Hartman transfer tax case
Dis believed to have been written with
victory on the side of the widow of
the late railroad king and the Oregon
short Line railroad Justice Morgan
wrote the majority decision which is
concurred in by Justice Bulge, Chief
Justice Sullivan dissents.
The state OF Idaho sought In this
case to enforce collection of an in
heritance tax from Mary w. Hartman
because of the alleged transfer of in
terest in the Oregon Short Line rail-
road to her following the death OF her
husband, E. H. Hartman, head of the
Union Pacific system while alive. The
defense of Mrs. hartman was that she
had only inherited stocks and bonds of
the Union Pacific railroad which is not
nnder Idaho jurisdiction. The state
held such stocks and bonds constituted
an interest in the oregon Short Line
railroad part of the Union Pacific sys-
tenn. The adverse decision of the SUI
preme court to the states contention
IS of far-reaching Importance because
it not only closes the Hartman case
hut rnysn fr col 81 Of
transfer tax in other cases involving
large estates.
Probate Court Without Jurisdiction.
The attorney general in this case
sought to procure writ of mandate to
compel the judge of the probate court
to enter Judgment on the pleadings
and appoint competent person to
appraise the property Of the Oregon
Short Line railroad in Idaho so that an
inheritance tax could be levied.
The supreme court holds in it's de-
cision the jurisdiction of the probate
court is limited to matters of probate,
settlement Of estates. etc, jurisdiction
to hear and determine civil cases
wherein the debt or damage claimed
does not exceed the sum of $780,
1T was not the intention of the
legislature to attempt to provide for
the appointment Of an appraiser under
the circumstances disclosed by this
application says the court in its syl-
Iabus, but 1t authorized such appoint
ment by tie probate court, only in
cases where proceedings to probate
an estate are pending. or where the
decedent has left an estate subjec. to
probate in Idaho.
Since no proceeding Is pending to
probate the estate OF the late E. Fl.
Hartman. and since he does not ap-
pear to have left an estate in Idaho
subject to settlement under our laws,
and since the proceedings commenced
in the probate court do not involve
the appointment of a guardian, nor In
any particular come within the pre-
seribed limits of the jurisdiction of the
probate court as defined by section 81,
article of the constitution, that court
is without jurisdiction to entertain
such proceeding or to enter the iudg-
ment desired by plaintiff.
Section 1873 revised codes. so far as
It applies to the facts presented here,
limits the right to collect transfer tax
upon inheritance to cases where pro
perry shall pass by will o. by the in
testate laws OF this state, from anv
person who may die. seized or pos
sessed of the same while resident OF
Idaho, or If such decedent was non re-
sident at tbs time of his death, which