Case Name: NEWTON A. K. BUGBEE, COMPTROLLER, ETC., PROSECUTOR, v. THE BOARD OF HOME MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DEFENDANT; NEWTON A. K. BUGBEE, COMPTROLLER, ETC., PROSECUTOR, v. THE BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DEFENDANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1926-01-28
Citations: 4 N.J. Misc. 99
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEWTON A. K. BUGBEE, COMPTROLLER, ETC., PROSECUTOR, v. THE BOARD OF HOME MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DEFENDANT. NEWTON A. K. BUGBEE, COMPTROLLER, ETC., PROSECUTOR, v. THE BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 99–100

Head Matter:
NEWTON A. K. BUGBEE, COMPTROLLER, ETC., PROSECUTOR, v. THE BOARD OF HOME MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DEFENDANT. NEWTON A. K. BUGBEE, COMPTROLLER, ETC., PROSECUTOR, v. THE BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DEFENDANT.
Argued October 8, 1925
Decided January 28, 1926.
Before Justices Parker, Mtnturn and Black.
For the prosecutor, Edward L. Eaizenbach, attorney-generai, and Harry R. Coulomb, assistant attorney-general.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The question involved in these cases is whether the several gifts of William E. Honeyman during his life are taxable under section 1, subdivision 3 of the Transfer Inheritance Tax act. 4 Comp. Stat. of N. J., p. 5301; as amended, 2 Cum,. Supp., p. 3573.
Five years before the death of William E. Honeyman he gave and transferred to each defendant the aggregate sum of $0,000 each in three separate amounts and transactions, and on separate dates covering a period of two months. On an appeal from the assessments, the cases were heard by Vice Ordinary Buchanan; he advised a decree that the assessments made against the board of foreign missions should be set aside absolutely; that the assessments made against the board of home missions should be sustained as to the gift of $2,000, made November 19th, 1912, but set aside absolutely as to the remainder.
The Vice Ordinary prepared and filed a learned and persuasive opinion covering the points involved in both cases. We think the decree of the prerogative court in each case should be affirmed, for the reasons stated by the learned Vice Ordinary in the opinion filed.