Monheim Estate
304 A.2d 115
Pa.
1973
Check Treatment

*1 489 with, if a man yet, is but unable provided counsel, big cooperate illness, with counsel of mental because protections a provide which counsel can become nullity.6

Judgment reversed trial ordered if and and new when the appellant stand trial. competent 6 Ragone, 313, In A. Commonwealth v. Pa. 317 176 454 employed following language espousing lire Court the under “ lying theory principle why for this an of law: ‘The true reason person tried, insane should not be act is that he is disabled an Harg. just of God to make defense he have one. As is said in 4 may 205, lying private Stat. Tr. “there be circumstances his knowledge, prove innoceney, which would his he can advantage, persons up no because not known to the shall who take distinguished on them his defense.” The most criminal writers on jurisprudence agree views, concur these humane and all that no person, insanity, put upon in a state of should ever be his trial alleged crime, judgment an made to suffer the be of the law. defense, punishment, A madman cannot make a rational and as to punitur punished by [a furiosus solo furore lunatic is his mad ; 34, ; 395, 396; alone] ness P.C. Bl. 1 Hale’s 4 Com. 35 1 Chit. Cr. Russ, Shelf, L., 1841, p. 761; Crimes, p. 14; ed. 3. on ed. Comp. Lunacy, 467,* 468*; Stock on Non 36’: Freeman v. Peo ple, inquiry guilt American ‘The Decisions 220. into the person postponed insane, accused of crime must be where he is properly time he until such as shall able to model his defense’: Case, 125-26, Tr. Frith’s St. Id. at How. 307.” 176 A. 459.

Monheim Estate. *2 Argued Before C. J., March 13, 1973. Eagen, Jones, JJ. Nix Manderino, Pomeroy, Roberts, O’Brien, Attorney General, Frank, N. Assistant Frederick Attorney Deputy him General, Duff, John M. with Attorney for Commonwealth, General, Packel, Israel appellant. Oakley, Bvrsic é Bvrsic, Oonflenti, him

Iwm E. with appellee. Opinion Jones, Mr. Justice 1973: May 4, Chief appeal is the amount of issue this transfer At on United States Government bonds tax due inheritance registered in which were the names at $48,760 valued and her Mabel J. Monheim, sister, decedent, Frances at the time Monheim, decedent’s death.1 The Commonwealth inheri sought impose tance tax on of the face at 100% time of death. The claim was denied administra who trix, asserted that under the Section 241 of the Act, the bonds were taxable at of their face value.2 The Commonwealth filed its claim in the Orphans’ Court Division of the Coun Allegheny ty Common Pleas Court, which upheld administra trix’s position limiting imposition tax to of the face value. Exceptions decree filed 50% by Commonwealth were dismissed and a final de cree entered. The Commonwealth to this appealed Court. affirm We the decree of the Common Pleas Court.

The facts of this case were introduced by stipula- *3 tion and are in not dispute. Frances Mabel, and Joseph Monheim were brother and of sisters. None them ever imposed pursuant 1 The tax is to of the Inheri 15, 1961, tance and Tax Estate Act of June P. L. 72 P.S. seq. §2485-101et [hereinafter Act]. referred to as the Inheritance and Estate Tax Act of June P. L. §241, 72 §2485-241: P.S. Tenancy “Joint any property “When is held in the names of more two or persons, deposited in or is a in financial institution the names of persons, them, that, upon or more death two so tlie of one of right ownership or survivors have a to the immediate survivor property, of the accrual of and the whole them, right, upon of one shall a the death of be deemed such act, portion subject of a to tax under this fractional by dividing property the value whole he to determined such immediately joint property tenants in existence the number of preceding tenant. This section of the deceased the death property passing by property apply in and interests to not shall survivorship If the right of husband and wife. to the survivor death, contemplation co-ownership in within created was act, so trans- meaning this the entire interest 222 of of section though only subject under section as to tax ferred shall co-ownership.” person who created the part of the estate they together. lived death to Mabel’s and married jobs Prances was Joseph and outside held and Mabel stipulated that It was responsible housework. understanding among the members an there was provide for Joseph family would and that Mabel during in con- support her lifetime care and Prances’ homemaking fam- to the contribution sideration her stipulated ily utilized that Prances further unit. It was Joseph for her her business both Mabel transact frequently. they Concern- her behalf and that acted on stipulated ing was in it the bonds issue this case, at govern- purchasing the Frances knew that Mabel was and knew that ment bonds their Pittsburgh bonds were a safe jointly of Jo- in the names National Bank keys seph Joseph Both and Mabel had Mabel. Finally was it. it the safe box and access to stipulated by family agreed to the Common- although request was never made that, wealth Joseph could and would have secured Prances, joint deposit box bonds from the safe and delivered upon request by them to her. Prances agreed by It is all that Prances Monheim had jointly by to the access owned her bonds, they only and the are taxable at their decedent, face in accord with Section 241 of the Act. However, Commonwealth contends since that, through Prances’ box was Joseph, posses- her she not have a brother, did *4 support gift sion sufficient to a valid inter vivos and apply the tax should to therefore of the face appellee jointly The value. contends where titled registered in a are safe box bonds held in the agent purpose one name of the of represented other the co-owner co-owner, exactly agent by has the same of

493 joint she would have she holder containing box the bonds. involving proper Cases assessment transfer against jointly inheritance tax held assets been be- prior by fore this Court occasions. As noted Mr. Myers Chief Justice Maxet in Pa. Estate, 359 577, (1948), necessary 60 A. 2d 50 it is to examine the cir- placed cumstances each case where assets have been jointly registered in joint bonds to determine that ownership is not used as a device circumvent the payment legitimate ap- exaction. In this it case pears purchased joint that the by bonds Avere names the decedent to insure that both the decedent and her adequately provided sister, would be Frances, age. money their old It immaterial that the used to purchase the bonds came from the decedent. Cochrane’s (1941). 342 Estate, Pa. 20 A. 108, 2d 305 In determin- ing whether applied transfer inheritance tax should joint to the entire sum held in to half of joint the critical it, factor is whether the tenants had equal rights possession, ownership joint of the fund to the death of one tenant. In Graham Estate, 358 Pa. 57 A. 383, 2d government purchased one sister kept names with another sister were in a safe parties to both and to which both had equal access. We affirmed the assessment against surviving inheritance tax co-OAvnerbased on Myers one-half the the bonds.3 In supra, purchased held jointly we that bonds in name of the decedent and his sister in a imposed provisions The tax was under 1(e) of Section 521, of the Act of June P. L. as amended the Act of July Although repealed P. L. 44. the earlier acts were present Inheritance and Estate Tax Act of governing substantially taxation of interests were reenacted in supra. form. Bee note the same *5 Ms deposit decedent and to the box safe subject on their inheritance tax to transfer mother were “re- that the brother since full determined value. We custody complete and exercised of the bonds tained during the lifetime, them” his domimon over exclusive enjoy possession or control did not sufficient sister Myers gift inter vivos. a valid bonds to create over the recently Beggy relied on most Estate was held that trans- where we 285 A. 2d 89 Pa. 166, applied properly inheritance tax was fer purchased of bonds the value box and in a safe another and decedent only. Again the name registered in the decedent’s surviving neither “had co-owner that the rationale was had no and of the bonds nor were in which the bonds hose added.) kept." (Emphasis factually distinguishable controversy present is The by directly and is not controlled cases from our Unique tMs case is the existence decisions. those surviving relationship agency between the the surviving of the safe- the co-holder bonds by surviving members It was averred box. stipulated family, Commonwealth, “Joseph and would have secured could that joint safety deposit box of Mabel and from the bonds delivery request to and of Frances on the himself appeal has raised the Commonwealth her.” On use contingencies could arisen to have number relationship questioned agency and has even defeat agency agreement ever at all. existed the stated whether proper questions matters Common Those challenged the Commonwealth If the had Court. Pleas binding agency agree- nature of the extent existence, between the co-owner to exist ment averred deposit of the safe before the co-holder presented they an issue of would court, lower fact to be resolved that court. However, having that could and would stipulated below secure Joseph the bonds demand by the Commonwealth Frances, cannot now existence argue agency to doubt. agreement *6 open is able to

Where access to his prove prop- erty through the co-owner has a qualified agent, pres- unrestricted and immediate ent, sufficient to sustain the of transfer inheri- imposition tance tax under the formula outlined Section 241 the Inheritance and Estate Tax Act of 1961.

Decree affirmed. Costs appellant. Eagbn

Mr. Justice dissents. Concurring Opinion Mr. Justice Roberts: I concur in the result substantially reasons set forth my dissenting opinion Beggy 446 Pa. 2d 285 A. (1971).

McCoy Acceptance Corporation v. Public

(et Appellant). al.,