TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Estate of Woodard

In the Matter of the Estate of EDSON G. WOODARD, Deceased

In re Estate of Woodard, 94 P. 242 (Cal. 1908)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 10, 1908
Docket
No. L.A. No. 1989.
Judges
--This
Citations
94 P. 242153 Cal. 391908 Cal. LEXIS 413
Headnotes
Estate or Deceased Person—Collateral Inheritance Tax Determined by Act in Force at Death.—The amount of a collateral inheritance tax to be paid by those succeeding to the estate of a deceased person is to be determined by the statute in force at the time of the death of the deceased.
Summary
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County fixing a collateral inheritance tax, and from an order distributing the estate of a deceased person. N. H. Conklin, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — --This

THE COURT.—This is an appeal by George F. Schwartz, as county treasurer of the county of San Diego, from two orders of the superior court, one settling the final account of the administrator with the will annexed of the estate of deceased, and the other decreeing final distribution. No brief on behalf of respondent has been filed. Under the will of deceased, his brother was entitled to the whole estate, and the sole question presented by counsel for the appellant is, to what act of the legislature must we look to determine the amount of collateral inheritance tax to be paid by those succeeding to the estate ? That question is answered by two decisions of this court (Estate of Stanford, 126 Cal. 112 , [ 54 Pac. 259 , 58 Pac. 462 ] ;

Trippet v. State, 149 Cal. 526 , [ 86 Pac. 1084 ]). It is the act in force at the time of the death of the deceased that must govern. At the time of the death of the deceased, the act in force was that of March 20, 1903 (Stats. 1903, p. 268), under the provision of which the tax upon property passing to a brother was five per cent. The lower court erroneously proceeded upon the theory that the act of 1905 (Stats. 1905, p. 341), which fixed such tax at one and one-half per cent, was applicable.

The orders appealed from are reversed and the cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1917: 11919: 11922: 11937: 21941: 21948: 119172026peak 1937 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Potter v. Chambers204 P. 826 (Cal. 1922)
  2. In re Clark's Estate74 P.2d 401 (Mont. 1937)
  3. Hunt v. Wicht162 P. 639 (Cal. 1917)
  4. Nickel v. State177 P. 409 (Nev. 1919) · Dissent
  5. Estate of Dargie119 P.2d 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
  6. Martin v. Wilson119 P.2d 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Gregory v. State197 P.2d 728 (Cal. 1948)
  2. Estate of Dargie119 P.2d 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
  3. Martin v. Wilson119 P.2d 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
  4. In re Clark's Estate74 P.2d 401 (Mont. 1937)
  5. State v. Executors of Last Will & Testament of Clark74 P.2d 401 (Mont. 1937)
  6. Potter v. Chambers204 P. 826 (Cal. 1922)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Estate of Stanford, 45 L.R.A. 788 (Cal. 1899) 62
Trippet v. State, 86 P. 1084 (Cal. 1906) 38

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list