Succession

! The mode by which a right is transmitted to another person or set of persons.

1.

Transmission of the rights and obligations of a deceasc-d person to his heir or heirs.2 (Civil law.) Succession tax. As succession is the devolution of title to realty, by will, deed, or the laws of descent, a "succession tax " is a tax imposed upon such devolution.' Not a tax on property, but a premium demanded tor the privilege of transmitting one's estate. In the absence of a, constitutional inhibition, the power to impose such a tax is inherent in o, legislature.* See Descent; Inherit.

2.

The mode by which the members of a corporation aggregate acquire the rights which belonged to their predecessors. A method of gaining a property in chattels, whether personal or real; but, in strictness, is applicable only to a corporation aggregate: in which one set of men, by succeeding another set, acquire a property in all the goods, movables, and other chattels of the corporation. In law, the corporation neverdies; predecessors and successors constitute one and the same body. Hence, in a gift to the corporation, no allusion need be made to successors. But in the case of a sole corporation, no chattel interest can regularly go in succession. " Successor," applied to a person in his political capacity, is equivalent to "heir," in his natural.capacity.* In a grant to a corporation aggregate, the word "successors," though usually inserted, is not necessary.** By analogy to the rule of the common law, that a grant to a natural person, without words of inheritance, creates only an estate for life, the grant of a franchise, without words of perpetuity, to a corporation aggregate, whose duration is limited, creates only au estate for its life.' See Pehpetual. "Heirs," used instead of "successors," will not vitiate a deed.^ 3. To the office of President of the United States, see Peesident. ' L. Stic- iaub), next, after; cedere, to go, follow.

2 See Hunt v Munt, 37 Me. 844 (1853); Blake v. Mc Cartney, 4 Cliff. 103 (1869). ' See Blake v. Mc Cartney, 4 Cliff. 103-6 (18C9;; United States V. Hunnewell, 13 F. B. 61T, 018-22 (1882), cases; 2 Bl Com. 616. < Peters v. Lynchburg, 76 Va. 929 (1882): Eyre v. Jacob, 14 Gratt. 428 (1858), Lee, J. »2 Bl. torn. 430-31, 108, 126; 1 id. 468. » Union Canal Co. v. Young, 1 Whart. *425 (1836); Overseers v. Sears, 22 Pick. 132 (1839); Congregational Society v. Stark, 34 Vt. 249 (1861). ' St. Claii- County Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U. S. 68