I'fiJDERAL ,REPORTER. , .
rate stipulateHor, which. would not be'usual. In 'every view, the plain'-: tiff seems by law to'he entitled to recover double the amoullL of interest actually paid ill this Judgment 'for plaintiff for $501.76 ,damages.
«(Jircuit Oourt. D. Massachusetts. March 2, 1883,)
1. TAXATION-NoN-RESIDENT EXECUTORS-AssESSMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
The General Statutes of Massachusetts. D. 11, f 12, provide that property held by an executor residing out of th';' state, in trust to pay the income to perBODS within the state, is taxable tothe'latter, but does not authorize the taxaproperty in the hands..of an executor. residing out of the state, tion of which is part of the estate of his testator and held by him in trust to pay the income for life to inhabitants of the state, but is not shown to be itself in the state.
The statute of ,1878'j c. 189, §2, has for its only object to amend the provision of chapter 11, f 12, ,Gen. St., in the single point, that, I\fter the expiration of three years from the appointment of the executor, the property, whether distrilJUtedor not, should be assessed according to the provisions cited above.
J.' W; Hammond. for plaintiff. L. S. Dabney. for defendant. Before GRAY and LOWELL,JJ. GRAY, Justice. Since the decision in October last, sllstaining the defendant's demurrer, the plaintiff. by leave of the court,has amended his declaration, so as to show that, among other bequests' made by the will under which the defendant was appointed audacted as executor, the testator gave to each of three persons, who at the time of the probate and ever; since were inhabitants of Cambridge, the in. come for life of a sum of $20,000. to be set apart and invested by tile executor, and the principal, after the death of the beneficiary for life, to be paid to other persons who.are not shown to be inhabitants of Massachusetts; and that the personal property of the t(ilstator com:ng to the hands of tpe executor was sufficient to provide for these t.hree The case has now been argue4 upon a. demurrer to the amended declaration.,' . . Wearlil of opinioI;lthat the facts .thus alleged and admitted do not vary the cresult; that neither the seventh olaQse of the General Stat·
*See S. C. 14
NlOHOLS 11. BEARD.
utes, c. 11, § 12, nor tho statute of 1878, c. 189, § 2, authorizes the assessment, to an executor residing out of the state, of an annual tax upon, 01' by reason of, personal property which is. part of the estate of his testator, and is held by him in trust to pay the income for life to inhabitants of the state, but is not shown to be itself within the state; and that the whole object and effect of. the later statuteare to amend the earlier one in the.l:linglepoint, that, after the expiration of threl _years from the appointment of the executor,the property, whether distributec10r not, should be assessed 8.9cording to the provisions of the fifth clause of the General Statutes, c. 11,§ 12; and by that clause property held by an executor residing out of. the state, in trust to pay the income to persons .within the state, is taxable to the latter only. Demurrer sustained, and judgment for the defendant.
D; Massachusetts. January 81, 1888.)
CUSTOMS DUTIEs-MEAsUREMENT 0-;' LIQUIDB.
All importations of liquids, includ.ing ale and porter, are to be estfmllted lI.Qcording to the standard of the gallon of commerce, containing cubic ,. , inches of measurement.
In Equity. Samuel W. Oreech,Jr., for plaintiff. GeorgeP. Sanger, Dist. Atty., for defendant. NELSON, J.. This is an action against the collector of the port. of Boston to recover back duties paid under protest. At the trial by the court without a jury the following facts were proved or admitted: The in February, 1880, plaintiff, a merchant and resident of New imported into the port of Boston, from Liverpool, a quantity of. ale and stout otherwise than in bottles; measuring 6,200 wine gallons of 231 cubic inches each, or 5,300 beer gallons of 282 cubic inches each. In the invoices and entry by the plaintiff the number of gallons was given in beer measure. The collector, taking the wine gallon as the standard of measure, assessed a duty of 20 cents a gallon on 6,200 gallons, and exacted the same from the plaintiff, who, claiming that the dl'ltyshould have been assessed up OIl only 5,300 gallons, the number of gallons according to beer measure, protested a.gainst the payment of ,the duty upon the 900 gallons mel.lleSS of the