Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/90/331/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:44:57+00:00

Document:
1. The "succession tax," imposed by the acts of June 30th, 1804, and July 13th, 1866, on every "devolution of title to any real estate," was not a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution, but an "impost or excise," and was constitutional and valid.
2. A devise of an equitable interest in real estate, in which personal property had been invested by the trustee with the assent of the devisor, before the making of the will, was a devolution of real estate within the meaning of the Acts of June 30, 1864, and July 13, 1860, and the devisee is liable to the succession tax imposed thereby in respect of it if he has received its value, although in proceedings for partition he has had assigned to him only personal property.
3. An alien to whom a devise of an interest in real estate has been made and who has received its value in proceedings for partition is estopped to set up against a demand for a succession tax thereon that by the law of the state where the estate is, the devise is absolutely null and void.
4. Quaere whether a general assignment of errors that the judgment below on a special case was for the wrong party is sufficient.
5. Semble that an objection that a devise is void because of the alienage of the devisee cannot first be taken by him in this Court on a writ of error to the judgment of a circuit court on a special case, although the record discloses the fact of alienage.
Error to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York, in which court Scholey, a British subject, sued Rew, collector of internal revenue, to recover the amount of a "succession tax" which Rew, as collector, had demanded of him, Scholey, and which -- asserting it to be illegal -- Scholey had paid only on compulsion and under protest.
Elwood, of Rochester, New York, died in 1863, leaving a widow and three minor children and a large amount of personal property, besides certain real estate.
He left also a will by which, after certain bequests of personal property, he directed that all the residue of his estate, real and personal, should be divided by his executors between his wife and three children, according to the statutes of New York, as if he had died intestate -- that is to say, as the Reporter supposes, though the language or effect of the statute was nowhere stated in the record or briefs -- one-third to the wife and two-thirds between the children. And he appointed his wife and two friends, Mumford and Russel, executors of the will.
In May, 1864, Russel, as acting executor, presented to the supreme court of New York a petition setting forth that the assets of the estate were about $500,000, chiefly invested in personal securities, but including a large amount of money uninvested; that it was deemed for the interest of the estate to invest a portion of the assets in productive real estate in Rochester; and asking authority to make the purchase of certain property described, in that city, for $73,000.
In pursuance of this prayer, an order was made authorizing the executors to invest so much as should be necessary of the assets of the estate in the purchase of the real estate described, and "to purchase and to hold the same as such executors."
Under the authority of this order, the executors in May, 1864, took a conveyance of the premises to themselves as executors of Elwood's will, the survivor or survivors of them, their successors or assigns, for $72,602. These premises were thenceforth styled and spoken of as the "Elwood lot," and, after being improved, as the "Elwood block."
At the time of Elwood's death, he owned four parcels of real estate in Rochester, one of them a vacant lot on Mill Street, which parcels were altogether of the value of $50,000.
After the purchase of the Elwood lot the executors, by authority of the supreme court of New York, erected a building on the vacant lot on Mill Street, which cost $15,111, and also made improvements upon the Elwood lot at a cost of $49,006, which increased the value of the property at least to that amount. All these improvements were completed in the spring of 1868, and were paid for, as was also the purchase price of the Elwood lot, out of the personal property of Elwood's estate.
In October, 1867, Mrs. Elwood, the widow of Elwood, was married to Scholey, the plaintiff in the present case, and in September, 1869, she died, leaving a will. By her will, after five annuities during the lives of the five annuitants, amounting altogether to $4100 annually, certain specific legacies of personal property, and certain legacies of money, amounting to $6500, she gave all the residue of her property, real and personal, to her husband, the plaintiff, and appointed him with the above-named Mumford and one Worcester, executors.
In February, 1870, Mumford, as sole surviving executor of Elwood's will (Russel having died in 1866), instituted joint proceedings in the supreme court of New York against the three children of Elwood, against Scholey, Worcester, and Mumford, as co-executors of Mrs. Scholey's will, and against Scholey individually as her husband and residuary legatee.
estate, and its value at the time of his death and at all times afterwards; that Mrs. Scholey's share in that personal estate at the time of her death and at the time of the accounting, and also "what right or title she had in and to the said real estate, bought or improved out of the personal estate of" Elwood, might be determined; that when such share or interest should be determined, it should be partitioned from the body of Elwood's estate; that the shares of the three children in their father's personal estate might be determined and partitioned off to them in severalty, and that thereafter the share of each child might be kept separate, to the end that such share, with its increase, might be paid to each respectively as he or she should become entitled to receive it.
Scholey answered, admitting the making of the various orders and the investment of the sums mentioned in the purchase and improvement of real estate; denied the binding character of the orders, but admitted the propriety of the investments in case the advantages thereof were to be equitably shared by the parties interested in the funds invested, in proportion to their respective interests. He admitted that no distribution of Elwood's personal estate had been made and joined in the prayer for an accounting and distribution, praying further that upon Mrs. Scholey's share's being ascertained, the same, or such part of it as should not be required to provide for the legacies given by her will, might be delivered to him as her residuary legatee.
whether Elwood's personal estate could be actually partitioned as between his three children, and if so to make such partition.
That Elwood's personal estate at his death amounted to $331,709, and at the date of the report to $492,374, which last sum included the building on the Mill Street lot, at $15,111, and the Elwood block at $135,000, and that the value of such personal estate subject to partition at the latter date, after deducting three specific bequests or charges in Elwood's will, was $467,402, which sum included the Elwood block and Mill Street building at the above valuation.
A judgment was entered upon this report December 8th, 1870, reciting the partition, including the setting apart to each of the children of the undivided one-third of the Elwood block, confirming such partition, and adjudging that the complainant Mumford should remain in possession of the Elwood block as trustee for the children until they should respectively become of age.
Upon these facts, the plaintiff here, Scholey, was assessed for a succession tax of six percent upon $45,000, as the value of one-third interest in the Elwood block. He asserted that he was not liable to such tax, that he never was entitled to such real estate or any part of it, and that he never had any interest in it as a successor. He appealed from the assessment to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who decided the appeal adversely to him, whereupon he paid the defendant, May 30th, 1871, the amount so assessed, being $2,700, under compulsion and protest, and on the following day demanded repayment thereof, which was refused.
Upon this case, found as already said by the court, the plaintiff's counsel requested the court to order judgment against the defendant for $2,700 and interest. But the court held, as a matter of law, that on the statutes governing the case and immediately hereinafter cited the defendant was entitled to judgment, and judgment was entered accordingly.
"The sole question in the case is was the plaintiff liable to a succession tax upon this property? The sole error assigned is the decision of the court in the affirmative."
That for the purposes of the act, "the term real estate' shall include all lands, tenements, and hereditaments, corporeal and incorporeal," and that the term "succession" shall denote the devolution of title to any real estate.
"That every past or future disposition of real estate by will, deed, or laws of descent by reason whereof any person shall become beneficially entitled in possession or expectancy to any real estate or the income thereof upon the death of any person dying after the passing of this act shall be deemed to confer on the person entitled by reason of any such disposition a 'succession.'"
That "there shall be levied and paid to the United States in respect of every such succession as aforesaid, according to the value thereof," duties at rates depending upon the degree of consanguinity between predecessor and successor; and where the successor is "a stranger in blood," at the rate of six percent.
"shall be paid at the time when the successor, or any person in his right or on his behalf, shall become entitled in possession to his succession, or to the receipt of the income and profits thereof"
except that if it afterwards becomes more valuable by the determination of a prior charge upon or interest in it, an additional duty shall then be paid on its increased value.
"the interest of any successor in moneys to arise from the sale of real estate, under any trust for the sale thereof shall be deemed to be a succession chargeable with duty under this act, and the said duty shall be paid by the trustee, executor, or other person having control of the funds."
subject to any trust for the investment thereof in the purchase of real estate to which the successor would be absolutely entitled, shall be chargeable with duty as above."
Questions of importance were discussed at the bar, some of which it cannot be admitted are properly presented for decision. Such questions only as are specified in the assignment of errors are, in general, to be regarded as open to the plaintiff, and it is very doubtful whether an assignment that the decision of the circuit court is for the wrong party is sufficient to present any question for decision, but inasmuch as the findings of the court in this case are in their nature a special finding, the better opinion is that their sufficiency to support the judgment is open to reexamination.
Enough has already appeared to show that the plaintiff took under his wife's will an equitable interest in one-third of the estate in question, and the United States contend that in view of those facts he is liable to pay a succession tax or duty in respect of the same by virtue of the act passed to levy such taxes, as it applies to every past or future disposition of real estate by will, deed, or laws of descent, by reason whereof any person shall become beneficially entitled in possession or expectancy to any real estate, or the income thereof, upon the death of any person dying after the passage of that act.
(1) That the act imposing the duty is unconstitutional and void.
(2) That the case is not one within the act imposing the tax or duty.
(3) That the plaintiff being an alien the devise to him is absolutely void.
1. Support to the first objection is attempted to be drawn from that clause of the Constitution which provides that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within the Union, according to their respective numbers; and also from the clause which provides that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or amended enumeration; but it is clear that the tax or duty levied by the act under consideration is not a direct tax within the meaning of either of those provisions. Instead of that it is plainly an excise tax or duty, authorized by section eight of article one, which vests the power in Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare.
preceding section, which provides that the term succession shall denote the devolution of real estate; and the section which imposes the tax or duty also contains a corresponding clause which provides that the term successor shall denote the person so entitled, and that the term predecessor shall denote the grantor, testator, ancestor, or other person from whom the interest of the successor has been or shall be derived.
Successor is employed in the act as the correlative to predecessor, and the succession or devolution of the real estate is the subject matter of the tax or duty, or, in other words, it is the right to become the successor of real estate upon the death of the predecessor, whether the devolution or disposition of the same is effected by will, deed, or laws of descent, from a grantor, testator, ancestor, or other person from whom the interest of the successor has been or shall be derived; nor is the question affected in the least by the fact that the tax or duty is made a lien upon the land, as the lien is merely an appropriate regulation to secure the collection of the exaction.
beneficially entitled to the same, or the income thereof, in possession or expectancy, under the circumstances and conditions specified in the other parts of the section.
that that circumstance cannot relieve him from liability to pay a succession tax in respect to his share of the estate, for the obvious reason that he received its full value in other property assigned to him belonging to the same estate.
Beyond what may be inferred from the finding of the court that the plaintiff is an alien, it does not appear that the defense of alienage was set up in the court below, nor does the assignment of errors contain any specification of such a question, except that the plaintiff is not liable to a succession tax and that the decision of the court below that he is so liable is erroneous. Such an assignment is not a compliance with the rule upon that subject, but the Court is not inclined to rest the decision upon that ground.
Nothing appears in the record of an express character to show that the plaintiff was ever authorized by statute to hold real estate, but it does appear that he claimed a one-third interest in the block in respect of which the succession tax was levied, and that his claim was recognized by the court and all the parties in the partition suit, and that the same was finally adjudged to him in the judgment of partition by an allowance for the value in other property left by the testatrix; nor can it make any difference that the corresponding allowance to him was of personal property, never converted into real estate, as the record of the proceedings in partition shows that the referees, whose report was confirmed and adopted by the court, adjusted the amounts as if the block was personal property, probably for the reason that the consideration of the same at the time of the investment was paid out of the personal property left by the former husband of the testatrix.
Difficulty, it may be admitted, would attend the solution of the question if the issue was one between the plaintiff and the heirs at law of the testatrix, but the record shows that the testatrix became the owner of the property in the manner before stated, and that the interest claimed by the plaintiff was devised to him by the actual owner, and that he claimed it as if entitled to it under the will of the testatrix, and that he received one-third part of the income of the same from her decease to the commencement of the suit for partition, and that the claim made by him was fully recognized and included in the judgment of partition, and nothing is shown to support the theory that he is not still in the undisputed enjoyment of the allowance made to him in substitution for the one-third interest of the estate in respect of which the succession tax was levied.
Except for the purpose of avoiding the tax or duty due to the United States, he has always claimed the benefit of the devise, and still claims it for every other purpose. Had he disclaimed the right to take the interest devised to him, the actual devolution of the estate would have given the right of possession to the heirs, either by the will or by the law of descent, and in that event the United States would not have met with any embarrassment in levying and collecting the succession tax or duty. By the terms of the will, the devise was to the plaintiff, and inasmuch as he claimed the benefit of it without opposition and has continued to enjoy its use, as before explained, to the present time, it followed that the heirs could not be subjected to such an exaction.
Having accepted the beneficial interest under the will, and being in the undisturbed enjoyment of the same, he must bear the burden which legally attaches to the interest.
13 Stat. at Large 287-291, §§ 126-150.
§§ 126, 127, 133, 137, 138, 139.
13 Stat. at Large 285-287, §§ 124, 125.
Ib.. 286, § 124 ad finem.
Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171; 1 Kent, 12th ed., 255; Story on the Constitution, § 955.
Insurance Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 446; Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 546; Clark v. Sickel, 14 Internal Revenue Record 6.
Federalist, No. 36, p. 161; 7 Hamilton's Works, 847; License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462.
Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 495*; Provident Institution v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 625; Bank v. Apthorp, 12 Mass. 252.
Wilcox v. Smith, 4 Drewry 49; Blythe v. Granville, 13 Simons 195; Attorney General v. Middleton, 3 Hurlstone & Norman 136; Same v. Fitz-John, 2 id. 472; Same v. Gardner, 1 Hurlstone & Coleman 649; Same v. Gell, 3 id. 629; Braybrooke v. Attorney General, 9 Clark (House of Lords Cases) 165; Lyall v. Lyall, Law Reports, 15 Equity 11; Jeves v. Shadwell, Law Reports, 1 Chancery Appeals 1; In re Badart, Law Reports, 10 Equity 296.
2 Revised Statutes of New York 58.
Swain v. Seamans, 9 Wall. 273; Picard v. Sears, 6 Adolphus & Ellis 474; Freeman v. Cooke, 2 Exchequer 654; Foster v. Dawber, 6 id. 854; Edwards v. Chapman, 1 Meeson & Welsby 231; Bigelow on Estoppel 378; Hyde v. Baldwin, 17 Pickering 303.

References: § 124
 v. 
 § 955
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.