In Re the Appraisal for Taxation of the Estate of Whiting
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made February 14, 1896, which affirmed an order of the surrogate of the county of Hew York affirming an appraisal of property under the Transfer Tax Act (Chap. 399, Laws of 1892). The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinions. A debt cannot be regarded as property in a state in which neither the debtor nor the creditor resides.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made February 14, 1896, which affirmed an order of the surrogate of the county of Hew York affirming an appraisal of property under the Transfer Tax Act (Chap. 399, Laws of 1892). The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinions. A debt cannot be regarded as property in a state in which neither the debtor nor the creditor resides. (People ex rel. v. Comrs. of Taxes, 23 N. Y. 224; People v. Trustees of Ogdensburgh, 48 N. Y. 390; People ex rel. Jefferson v. Smith, 88 N. Y. 576; People ex…
1Dissent
Gray, J".
(dissenting). I cannot concur in the opinion that the bonds of foreign corporations, which formed a part of the non-resident decedent’s estate, were subject to appraisal for taxation purposes under the “ Transfer Tax Act,” because they happened to be, at the time of his decease, deposited within this state. Holding, as we do, and must, -in conformity with authority and reason, that the property represented by the bonds is the debt which follows the creditor’s person, I am unable to perceive how they can be dissociated from that indebtedness. Nor do I perceive any good reason for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Case of the State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds. Railroad Company v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Toronto General Trust Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1890