the bridge, but this is so small a proportion of the entire cost of the bridge that it ought not to affect plaintiff's right to the relief prayed for, inasmuch as the court can adjust the equities of the parties in that regard. There will, therefore, be a decree entered that, unless the defendants, the towns of Utica and Deer Park, within 90 days from this date, pay to the plaintiff the amount due upon the contract for the construction of this bridge, deducting the $2,609.45 which has been paid, together with interest upon the balance unpaid at the rate of 6 per cent. from the time of the completion of the bridge, the plaintiff will be allowed to take down the bridge and remove it, under the direction of a proper officer of this court; but that, if the defendants, or some of them, shall not elect to make this payment and thereby save the bridge, plamtiff will be allowed to take down and remove the iron superstructure of the bridge; but before plaintiff so removes the bridge, it will be required to repay the town of Utica the sum of $2,609.45 so paid to plaintiff by said town on account of the bridge.
UNITED STATES V. BANKS,
(District Oourt, 8. D. New York.
DEED OF GIFT FRm! TES'fATOR TO DEVISEE-
A devisee, prior to the testator's neath, has no present ebtate or recognizahle legal interest in the property dcvised; and a deed from the testator to the devisee, which is a charge agalllst his future expected interest only, cannot be deemed given or received upon any valuahle or adequate consideration. 2. SAME-ADVAXCDIEXT-SUCCESSJOX TA.'(-Acl' OF JUXE 1864, § 132. A deed of gift to a son, though made as an advancement, aud, as such, chargeable against the son's ultimate share of the father's estate under a will existin.g at the time of the deed, is a" succession," under section 132 of the act of .June 30, 1864, as a conveyance without" valuahle and adequate consideration," and is chargcable with a tax of 1 per cent. on the valne of the property conveyed.
At La1\. Eli/w. Root, U. S. Atty., and TV. TV. Adams, Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff. E. Ellery Anderson, for defendant. BROWN, J. This action is brought under the act of June 30, 1864, to recover the sum of $120, as a succession tax of 1 per cent. upon a lot of land of the agreed value of $12,000, conveyed by David Banks, senior, to his son, the defendant, in February, 1860. In 1865 the grantor had executed his will, in which he made certain legacies to equalize his prior gifts among his four sons. The will further declared that "all advances which mav hereafter be made to either of my sons shall be charged against su"ch son as an advance, and shall
STATI;:S V. BANKS.
,bear interest from the time he shall receive the same." Subsequently, in 1869, the testator designed to make a gift of a lot to each ,of his four sons. The deed to the defendant was made and delivered in part execution of that intention. For some reason, which does 'not fully appear, the other three sons did not obtain any deel: of the lots 'designed for them, and the testator died in September, 1871, leaving his will unchanged. In the niean time, the law imposing a succession 'tax was repealed. The defendant, in the settlement of theestate, accounted to his three brothers for the value of the lot in ques,tionas an "advance" under the will. Upon tl:ese facts the defendant contends that the conveyance was not without a full valuable consideration, inasmuch as by reason of the grantor's intention to make an equal gift to his four sons alike, which was only in part executed, 'the deed became an "advance" under the will, and as such was, from the moment of its delivery, a charge upon the defendant's expectancy under his father's will to the full value of the lot can veyed. The clause in the will above quoted relating to "advances" would seem from the context, ahd the provision relating to interest, to hav" been drawn in reference to advances of money. Chase v. Ewing, 51 Barb. 597. Though there is some difficulty, therefore, in bringing this conveyance within the literal reading of the will, still it is within its equitable intention. Conceding this point, however, I think it ,is not sufficient to relieve the defendant from the tax imposed by the act. Section 132, in defining a taxable succession, includes any '''deed of gift or other assurance of title made without 'miuable or adequate consideration;" and a similar tax was imposed upon a sue" cession by devise. At the time the deed was executed the defendant had no proprietary interest whatever in the property of his father. He had no "expectancy"-i. e., no expectant estate therein-in the A will speaks only sense of our statutes. N. Y. Rev. St. 723, from the testator's death; and in this case his death was two years ,afterwards. Until then the defendant had no recognizable interest in his father's property, either legal or equitable. He had no vested or contingent estate therein, but only a mere possibility of an inter,est. This possibility, though the possible subject of a contract which might be enforced in equity after the testator's death, (Beckley 'v. Newlalld, 2 P. Wms. 182,) was not assignable so as to conyey any interest in the estate, nor a subjectof a present conveyance or of any present charge. Jackson v. Waldron, 13 Wend. 178; 11fllllsell v. Leu-is, 4 Hill, G35. . The "valuable and adequate consideration" referred to in section 132 must be held to mean either mouey paid: or some present legal ill'terest or estate parted with or charged, or services rendered, to the 'value of the property received. U. S. v. Hart, 4 FED. REP. 2D3. 'Here no money was paid, nor had the defendant any present right, interest, or estate, in contempl;ltio? of law, upon or against
the conveyance at the time it was made could be a legal charge. The deed was in law, therefore, a pure gift, although it might, and did, result ultimately in diminishing the devise to the defendant under the will. 'l'his devise was also a gift, which would have been subject to the like succession tax had the law not been repealed. As an "advance" the deed was a gift, and none the lesi! so because a subsequent gift by devise ",'as thereby made so much the less. As the defendant, on receiving this deed, parted with no present valuable interest recognizable in law, and was not in consequence of the deed subsequently deprived of anything to which or in which, at the time the deed was made, he had any legal interest, right, or property, the deed must be held to be within the statutory definition of a successian; and judgment is, therefore, ordered for $1:20, with interest and costs.
GLEN IRON WORKS,
,District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
SUBscnIPTIONS-LIABILITY OF tiTOCK-
The capital of an insolvent private corporation, suhscrihed by stockholders, snhjeet to as<es,ment caB; by a board of directors, remaining unpaid, and not ealled 01' assesse I by the directors, are to jnrlgment creditors of the corporation, and llIay he s"izcr! as well hy Writs of aaachment execution issned against the stockholders f,S by '\ cred.tors' Lill.
NOrRs-ASSERS'IENTS AND CALLS
'Where the articles of association of a corporation provided for a capital stock of $141.l,OOLl, and stipn a'ed that the stoekhol(lers hould give th ·i,. notes, withont intere', for th.)ir re_pe ·tive subscriptions, which note_ S!lOnld n"t he liable at any time to an as e_sment for more than 50 per centum of their face, held that, in case of insohTnr,y, the whole capital subscrihed was liahle tocrcditors; ami the corporation h'lVi<lg hecome bankrupt after 20 per centu:n of the capitallHtl1 heell as_cs_ed and pa'd in, that the stockholdt'rs were Iiahle to creditors for their rcs;:ective proporti illS of the whole unpa,d amount suuscriLed.
The corporation having heen declared hankrupt. upon proccedings instituted suh<e.plently to the service of 8U 'h writs of attacll"lH'nt excclit on upon stockholders, and the unpaid capital having heen awarded 10 the as_ignee. without prejudice to the rights of· attaching crediloB, and with provision for their intervention, upon the intervention of the attaching cre.blors, clfliming the amount of their jndgme'lt out of the fnnrl in the hands of the a __ llfld, that the same was lia'de to the l,en of the attacllments, and should ue awarded to the attaChing creditors.
Exceptions to Register's Report. , The subscriptiull list or articles of association of the Glen Iron Works, a corporation, pro\'ided, inter alia., for a capital of $140,000, and the subscribers agreed to give \heir notes therefor without interest; not to be liable at any time to an assessment of mure than 50
tReported hy Albert B. Guilbert, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.