King v. Eidman

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York

Decided October 28, 1903.)

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York · decided 1903-10-28

<p>1. Intebnal Revenue — Degaoy Tax — Consanguinity.</p> <p>A legacy to a son-in-law of tlie testator is subject to tax under the fifth clause of section 20 of the war revenue act of June 13, 1898, c. -148, 30 Slat. 464 [U. 8. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2308], as one to a stranger in blood.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1904

1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1903-10-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶11. Intebnal Revenue — Degaoy Tax — Consanguinity.

¶2A legacy to a son-in-law of tlie testator is subject to tax under the fifth clause of section 20 of the war revenue act of June 13, 1898, c. -148, 30 Slat. 464 [U. 8. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2308], as one to a stranger in blood.

¶3Action to Recover Degacy Tax Paid.

¶4Chas. Duane Baker, Asst. II. S. Atty., for the demurrer.

¶5J. G. K. & F. D. Dee, opposed.

¶6WADDACK, Circuit Judge.

¶7Unless a son-in-law is a blood relation of his father-in-law, the legacy tax iti controversy was correctly assessed. The complaint does not allege that there was any degree of lineal or collateral consanguinity between the testator and his son-in-law. The question seems too plain for serious discussion.

¶8Demurrer sustained, with costs.