1 Pow. Surr. 200 | N.Y. Sur. Ct. | 1892
—This is a proceeding to show cause why a decree should not be made adjudging that the real and personal estate passing to the petitioners, Floyd Greenman and Henry Greenman, nephews of deceased, he not subject to taxation under chapter 483 of the Laws óf 1885, and the several actsamendatory thereto.
The two nephews make this application for exemption from ■the payment of the tax on the ground that for a period of not less than ten years prior to the death of their aunt, Mary Sweet-land, they stood in the mutually acknowledged relation of parent and children.
The facts upon which the application is based are as follows r Mary Sweetiand was never married, and from the earliest recollection of the petitioners had made her home a part of the time with her parents, and some of the time with others. Upon the death of Miss Sweetiand’s mother, her heirs agreed upon a settlement of her estate, by which the mother’s farm in Oazenovia became the property of Miss Sweetiand and her sister, Mrs.
The application must be denied, because we think the law to be that if a child continues to live at home w'ith his parents after he has reached his majority the relation of parent and child,,
A less stringent and different rale should apply in case of minor children because of their lack of legal right to fix their relation with others, their real or supposed lack of that judgment and discretion which is necessary to determine what is best for them, their dependence upon others for their care, education and maintenance, and the duty of the public, the courts, and of private- individuals to provide for those whose helpless situation makes parental care necessary for them. So, too, there may be other special and peculiar circumstances arising from social, family or business relations, or from other causes and conditions in life, which would satisfy the court that it had the; legal right to infer the existence of parental relations. Again, if a father or mother dies, leaving children either over or under their majority, who have always lived at home, and the surviving parent remarries, such children and stepfather or stepmother, as the case may be, if they continue to recognize the relation of parent and. children to exist between them as ordinarily exhibited in families, the relation of parent and child would he presumed to exist, until the contrary was proven, and such child or children, in cases of a legacy from the stepfather or stepmother, would be exempted from the payment of the inheritance tax. Within the rules of law above stated, we think the petitioners would he exempt from the payment of any tax upon the legacy to them if their father had married his wife’s sister and they had continued to live at home with their aunt
Having stated the rules of law applicable to proceedings of this character*, we call attention to- some facts in this case in support of the conclusion we have reached. It appears that Mr. Greenman occupied and worked the farm in question from the death of Mrs. Sweetland in 1879 till his death in 1881, without any agreement with Miss Sweetland in regard to rent or payment in any form for the use of her half of it, and that during all this time she remained a member of the family, living with Mr. Greenman and his children without any agreement or understanding with reference to paying for her board, and upon his death the petitioners continued to carry on the farm till the death of their aunt in the same manner as their father had done, rendering her no account of its avails and paying her no compensation therefor, she continuing to live in the house in the same manner as she had done during the lifetime of Mr. and Mrs. Greenman. From the time Miss Sweetland and sister became the owners of the farm upon the death of their mother there was no change in the manner of conducting the farm or in the mode of living as far as she was concerned. The aunt and the children each treated and cared for the other the same as they had always done.
Ever since the nephews were bom she had made her home principally with their parents, had eaten at their table and been one of the family for more than thirty years, and we.assume she took an active interest in all family matters and assisted in all the varied duties of the household. But the relation of parent and children requires something more than living -in the same house and family under the circumstances shown in this case. Miss Sweetland and her sister were tenants in common of the farm, and after the death of Mrs. Greenman she was a like tenant with her nephews, and as such we assume she was occupy
Her life and theirs upon the farm were simply the assertion of the mutual rights which each had in the real property. The-fact that she never received any of the avails of the farm would indicate that they were retained in payment for her board and services rendered in her behalf, beacuse Hr. Greenman or her nephews would not probably have retained this income unless they had a right so to do for some purpose or reason mutually satisfactory to all.
The counsel for the petitioners rely upon the opinion of this, court in the Hatter of the Spencer Estate, 21 St. Rep. 152, in support of the claim from exemption, but the facts of the two-cases are so widely different that the conclusions of law therein maintained do not apply to this case.
The application of the petitioners will, therefore-, be denied, and an order entered appointing an appraiser of the estate of Mary Sweetland.