# State Ex Rel. Corporation Commission v. Dunn

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · December 5, 1917 · 174 N.C. 679

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812439

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE Ex Rel. CORPORATION COMMISSION Et Al. v. R. A. DUNN and J. B. BROWN, Exrs., Etc., Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** December 5, 1917
- **Citations:** 174 N.C. 679; 94 S.E. 481; 1917 N.C. LEXIS 173
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Allen
- **Judges:** Clark, Allen, Walker, Iioke
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812439

## Opinion text

Allen, J.,
concurring: Tbe Laws of 1917 provide that all real and personal property “which should pass by will or by tbe intestate laws of this State” shall be subject to tbe inheritance tax.
Tbe dower of tbe widow does not pass by will, and is not therefore taxable under tbe statute, unless it comes within tbe meaning of tbe phrase, “intestate laws of this State.”
The authorities from other States bold almost unanimously that dower does not pass by the intestate laws, but the decisions are based on the language and history of the statutes in the several States, and in each the Court was endeavoring to perform the duty, now imposed on us, of determining the intent and purpose of the General Assembly when it laid the tax on property passing by the intestate laws. The history of inheritance taxes is outlined in S. v. Scales, 172 N. C., 916 , and we then adopted a liberal construction of the statutes, “to the end of taxing all property fairly and reasonably coming within their provisions,” and we also said, after giving a statement of legislation on the subject:
“This statement of legislation upon tbe subject in this State shows an advancing tendency to include all property, to decrease exemptions, and to maintain a distinct classification of persons, tbe lineal descendant, lineal ancestor, husband and wife being in tbe most favored class, and the stranger and the corporation in tbe class subject to tbe highest tax.”
Having in view these principles, what did tbe General Assembly of this State mean when it said, “which shall pass by will or by tbe intestate laws of this State” ?
"When a man dies be leaves a will or dies intestate, and, as ordinarily understood, stripped of technicality, all of bis property must pass either by will or by tbe intestate laws, tbe latter expression being used as the equivalent of “or as in case of intestacy.”
Tbe history of legislation on tbe subject, and tbe changes made by tbe . act of 1913, which have since been retained in tbe statutes, sustain this construction.
In tbe act of 1911, after saying that all real and personal property passing by will or by tbe intestate laws of tbe State shall be subject to tbe inheritance tax, there is provision that all legacies or property “passing by will or laws of this State to husband or wife” shall be exempt, which clearly exempted dower, because it passes by tbe “laws of this State.”
*688 This provision was omitted from the act of 1913, and in lieu thereof the widow is given an exemption of $10,000.
"Why did the General Assembly of 1911 insert a proviso having the effect to exempt dower if the Legislature thought dower was already exempt because not passing by the intestate laws of the State ?
Why make the change in the act of 1913 and strike down a section in the act of 1911 which exempted dower, if the Legislature still intended dower to be exempt ? Why give the widow an exemption of $10,000, and no more, if in addition she was to have her dower free from taxation ?
It is not dower that is the favorite of the law, but the widow, and under the construction we give the statute she has an exemption of $10,000, when a child’s exemption, if under 21, is $5,000, and if over, $2,000, and the husband’s nothing, showing that she retains her favored position.
I concur in the opinion of the Chief Justice.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812439. Public record. Not legal advice.