Gallup's Appeal

16 Citing cases

  1. Hopkins' Appeal

    60 A. 657 (Conn. 1905)   Cited 17 times

    The Act is framed in view of the principle that personal property is bequeathed by will, and is descendible by inheritance, according to the law of the domicil, and that the disposition, distribution of, and succession to, personal property, wherever situated, is to be governed by the laws of that State where the owner had his domicil at the time of his death. Gallup's Appeal, 76 Conn. 617; Wilkins v. Ellett, 9 Wall. 740, 742; Parsons v. Lyman, 20 N.Y. 103; Dammert v. Osborn, 140 N.Y. 30. The duty imposed in respect to the property of a domiciled decedent depends upon the fact of the succession to all his personal property wherever situated, and does not depend upon the fact of a qualified succession of a particular person to some property within the State. The amount of the duty is fixed in reference to a valuation of the whole beneficial succession, based upon a valuation of all the personal property left by a decedent at his death.

  2. Silberman v. Blodgett

    105 Conn. 192 (Conn. 1926)   Cited 21 times

    '" The justification for the imposition of this tax upon personal property having its situs outside the jurisdiction of this State, and thus involving a power of jurisdiction in that State in respect to this tax, we state in Gallup's Appeal, 76 Conn. 617, 57 A. 699, at page 621: "Personal property is bequeathed by will, and is descendible by inheritance, according to the law of the domicil and not by that of its situs. Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 581 [ 22 Sup. Ct. 515].

  3. State v. Fusting

    106 A. 690 (Md. 1919)   Cited 6 times
    In State v. Fusting, 134 Md. 349, the one point considered by the court was whether or not the property there sought to be taxed was in the State of Maryland.

    It is not claimed, that if the Arkansas property owned by the testatrix at the time of her death were real estate, it would be subject to the tax, because the authorities are all agreed that the real estate of a resident decedent located in a foreign jurisdiction is not taxable. In re Swift Estate, 137 N.Y. 77; S.E. 32 N.E. 1096; Gallup's Appeal, 76 Conn. 617, S.C. 57 A. 699; The People v. Kellogg, 268 Ill. 489. But it is contended that the real estate in Arkansas by reason of the direction to sell contained in the will must be treated, upon the principle of equitable conversion, as personal property, and in this way made liable to the tax. In Gleason and Otis on Inheritance Taxation, page 237, it is said that: "The cases are also substantially unanimous in holding that even though the testator directs the sale of foreign real estate and the payment of money legacies out of the proceeds, the doctrine of equitable conversion is not applicable in the law of inheritance taxation.

  4. Estate of Kennedy

    157 Cal. 517 (Cal. 1910)   Cited 34 times

    It was said in the case just cited "the same authority which confers this privilege may attach to it the condition that a portion of the estate so received shall be contributed to the state." The act construed by the supreme court of Connecticut in Appeal of Gallup, 76 Conn. 617, [ 57 A. 699], was materially the same as our tax act, the description of property being "any property . . . which shall pass by will or by the inheritance laws of this state," etc. The court said that the design of this act was a tax based on the distribution of the net proceeds of the decedent's property, after payment of his debts and costs and charges of administration and after deduction of amounts and articles exempted, to the persons upon whom it devolves.

  5. Blodgett v. Silberman

    277 U.S. 1 (1928)   Cited 178 times
    Holding that partnership interests are choses in action under New York law

    This is a tax not upon property but upon the right or privilege of succession to the property of a deceased person as is made clear in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Errors in this and prior cases. Silberman v. Blodgett, 105 Conn. 192; Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 501; Hopkins' Appeal, 77 Conn. 644; Warner v. Corbin, 91 Conn. 532; Gallup's Appeal, 76 Conn. 617; Nettleton's Appeal, 76 Conn. 235. These cases are all in accord with Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 47, in which it was said by this Court that: "Taxes of this general character are universally deemed to relate, not to property eo nomine, but to its passage by will or by descent in case of its intestacy, as distinguished from taxes imposed on property, real or personal as such, because of its ownership and possession.

  6. Blodgett v. Bridgeport City Trust Co.

    161 A. 83 (Conn. 1932)   Cited 34 times

    Our succession taxes, so-called, "differ from taxes, properly speaking, in that they are exactions in the nature of death duties `to be paid to the State upon the occasion of death and the consequent transfer of ownership in the property of the decedent, through the intervening custody and administration of the law, to the persons designated by the law, through the statutes regulating wills, descents, and distributions.'" Warner v. Corbin, 91 Conn. 532, 536, 100 A. 354; Silberman v. Blodgett, 105 Conn. 192, 201, 134 A. 778; Hopkins' Appeal, 77 Conn. 644, 649, 60 A. 657; Gallup's Appeal, 76 Conn. 617, 620, 57 A. 699. So that where a beneficiary, during administration, conveys away his interest, the distribution will nevertheless be made to him as though the transfer had not been attempted. Holcomb v. Sherwood, 29 Conn. 418, 420.

  7. Blodgett v. Guaranty Trust Co.

    158 A. 245 (Conn. 1932)   Cited 37 times
    In Blodgett v. Guaranty Trust Co., 114 Conn. 207, 158 A. 245, we had before us an irrevocable deed of trust, wherein it was provided that the income was to be paid to the settlor during her life and, upon her death, to her husband, and that at his death the principal should go to their daughter absolutely, or, if she was dead, to her issue, with a gift over in default of issue.

    miciled in Connecticut, while temporarily in New York executed there the contract placing in trust with a New York trustee the intangible personal property — stocks, bonds, and a check on a New York bank — the physical evidences of which were also in the latter State. As to the basic principle involved, the situation appears to be indistinguishable from that applicable in cases, such as Silberman v. Blodgett, 105 Conn. 192, 134 A. 778, 277 U.S. 1, 48 Sup. Ct. 410, in which it has been held that intangible personality, although physically outside the State of the domicil of the owner, has such a situs at the domicil that its transfer on the death of the owner may be subjected to inheritance tax under the laws of the State of domicil. First National Bank of Boston v. Maine (1932) 284 U.S. 312, 52 Sup. Ct. 27; Bankers Trust Co. v. Greims, 110 Conn. 36, 147 A. 290; Blodgett v. New Britain Trust Co., 108 Conn. 715, 720, 145 A. 56; Hopkins' Appeal, 77 Conn. 644, 60 A. 657; Gallup's Appeal, 76 Conn. 617, 57 A. 699. The succession tax is "prescribed in view of the death of a domiciled resident of this State whose land within this State and whose personal property, wherever situate, is governed as to its disposition, distribution and succession, by the laws of this State." Hopkins' Appeal, supra, p. 649.

  8. Blodgett v. New Britain Trust Co.

    108 Conn. 715 (Conn. 1929)   Cited 14 times
    In Blodgett, our Supreme Court noted: "the statute is explicit and mandatory, `the interests of such beneficiaries shall be subject to such tax.' "(Emphasis added.)

    They differ from taxes, properly speaking, in that they are exactions in the nature of death duties `to be paid to the State upon the occasion of death and the consequent transfer of ownership in the property of the decedent, through the intervening custody and administration of the law, to the persons designated by the law, through the statutes regulating wills, descents, and distributions.'" Warner v. Corbin, 91 Conn. 532, 536, 100 A. 354; Silberman v. Blodgett, 105 Conn. 192, 201, 202, 134 A. 778; Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 501, 503, 103 A. 647. For this reason also, the imposition of the tax is not dependent upon the existence of the decedent's property within the jurisdiction of this State, and the tax is assessed even though the property itself could not be reached for taxation by this State. Hopkins' Appeal, 77 Conn. 644, 652, 60 A. 657; Gallup's Appeal, 76 Conn. 617, 57 A. 699; Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 581, 22 Sup. Ct. 515. The right or privilege upon which the succession tax is imposed accrued when this life interest passed to and became vested in Amos P. Hawley at the moment of the testator's death.

  9. Hibbard v. Thompson

    317 Mo. 986 (Mo. 1927)   Cited 20 times

    For the purposes of the Missouri inheritance tax law, intangible personal property, wherever situated, has a legal situs at the domicile or residence of the decedent, and the State has the power to impose the tax upon the succession or transfer thereof, where the decedent was a resident of the State, although the property was never actually in the State, Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U.S. 625; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.S. 189; Frick v. Pennsylvania, 268 U.S. 473; R.I. Hospital Trust Co. v. Doughton, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 256; In re Swift, 137 N.Y. 77; In re Merriam, 141 N.Y. 479; In re Morgan, 159 N.Y.S. 105; Dammert v. Osborn, 141 N.Y. 564; Frothingham v. Shaw, 175 Mass. 59; People v. Kellogg, 268 Ill. 489; People v. Griffith, 245 Ill. 532; Oakman v. Small, 282 Ill. 360; People v. Union Trust Co., 255 Ill. 168; In re Hodges, 170 Cal. 492; 26 R.C.L. 210; Blakemore Bancroft on Inheritance Taxation, secs, 207 and 209; Gleason Otis on Inheritance Taxation (3 Ed.) 22, 23 and 24; Gallups Appeal, 76 Conn. 617; Bridgeport Trust Company's Appeal, 77 Conn. 657; In re Sanford, 188 Iowa 833; State v. Probate Court, 124 Minn. 508; Dalrymple's Est., 215 Pa. 367; In re Sherwood's Estate, 122 Wn. 648. ATWOOD, J.

  10. Trust Co. v. Doughton

    187 N.C. 263 (N.C. 1924)   Cited 15 times

    Mobilia sequuntur personam. Gallup's appeal, 76 Conn. 617; In re Swift, 137 N.Y. 77; People v. Union Trust Co., 255 Ill. 168; McCurdy v. McCurdy, 197 Mass. 248; In re Hartman, 70 N. J., Eq., 664. In Frothingham v. Shaw, 175 Mass. 59, a resident of Massachusetts died, owning stocks and bonds of foreign corporations and money in bank in the State of New York.