{
  "id": 2406285,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. W. Holmes Forsyth et al. Exrs., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Forsyth",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "141",
  "last_page": "143",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "273 Ill. 141"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "79 N. Y. Supp. 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        7677221
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nys/79/0382-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 Cal. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 Ill. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4799606
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/269/0275-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 Ill. 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5571525
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/189/0472-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 289,
    "char_count": 4593,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.805,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.464797246855483e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4450133965339292
    },
    "sha256": "ea94db30bdfa8d36134a008dbd28129dd4eaf4848e3bc5342f4141e55f82e215",
    "simhash": "1:ac43dcbbf40e4053",
    "word_count": 806
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:30.500409+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. W. Holmes Forsyth et al. Exrs., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dunn\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal presents the question whether a widow\u2019s award is subject to the inheritance tax. Henry H. Forsyth died leaving a will, whereby his estate, amounting to $432,239.57, passed to his widow. Her widow\u2019s award, under the statute, was fixed at $15,000. The county court of Cook county assessed upon it an inheritance tax at the rate of two per cent, and the executors have appealed.\nThe inheritance tax is imposed by law upon all transfers of property by will or by the intestate laws of this State. In Billings v. People, 189 Ill. 472, it was said that the intestate laws are those laws of the State which govern the devolution of estates of persons dying intestate and include all applicable rules of the common law in force in this State; and in People v. Richardson, 269 Ill. 275, that they include, also, all statutes applicable to such estates. In the, former case it was held that a widow\u2019s dower was subject to the inheritance tax though her husband left a will disposing of all his estate, which she renounced. In the same case the imposition of the tax upon the widow\u2019s award was affirmed though the question in regard to the award was not discussed in the opinion, which said in regard to it only: \u201cThe widow\u2019s award is provided for by the act in regard to the administration of estates.\u201d There is no distinction, however, so far as this question is concerned, between the widow\u2019s dower and her award, except that dower existed at common law and the award is statutory. It was contended that dower did not pass by the intestate laws of the State or by the will but that the widow took in her own right, at common law, as widow, but the court affirmed the judgment imposing the tax on both the dower and award.\nThe relation of the two interests,\u2014the dower and the award,\u2014to the inheritance tax is practically identical. Each depends upon marriage and the ^death .of the husband. Each is an absolute right, of which the husband cannot deprive his wife though the legislature may take it away. Each is adverse to the rights of heirs, devisees, legatees and creditors and an incumbrance on their interests. There are certain differences that do not affect the question, as the necessity of residence of the widow in the State to entitle her to the award, but there is no essential difference affecting the question under consideration. The Supreme Courts of California and Tennessee have reached a different conclusion, and hold that an award made to a widow under somewhat similar statutes of those States is not subject to the inheritance tax. (In re Kennedy\u2019s Estate, 157 Cal. 516; Crenshaw v. Moore, 34 L. R. A. [N. S.] 1161.) These courts recognize no distinction between a widow\u2019s dower and her award, so far as the liability to the inheritance tax is concerned. The Tennessee case cites Billings v. People, supra, and while it states that the statutes of the two States are essentially different, recognizes the conflict in the two decisions and refuses to follow the Billings case but holds both the dower and the award not liable to the inheritance tax. The California case also puts the widow\u2019s award and a homestead of $14,000 set off to the widow in the same class and holds them not subject to the tax. The appellate division of the Supreme Court in New York has also held that certain enumerated articles which the statute declares shall not be deemed assets but shall belong to the widow, where there are no minor children, are not subject to the inheritance tax. In re Page, 79 N. Y. Supp. 382.\nThe case of Billings v. People, supra, was decided fifteen years ago, and we are not disposed to overrule it and follow the contrary decisions of other States which have been cited. The judgment of the county court is in accordance with that decision, and it is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dunn"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Holt, Cutting & Sidley, for appellants.",
      "P. J. Lucey, Attorney General, Thomas J. Young, and John J. Poulton, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. W. Holmes Forsyth et al. Exrs., Appellants.\nOpinion filed April 20, 1916.\nInheritance tax\u2014widow\u2019s award is subject to inheritance tax. The inheritance tax is imposed by law upon all transfers of property by will or by the intestate laws of this State, and there is no distinction, so far as the inheritance tax is concerned, between the widow\u2019s dower and her award, and either is subject to the inheritance tax. (Billings v. People, 189 111. 472, adhered to.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas F. Scully, Judge, presiding.\nHolt, Cutting & Sidley, for appellants.\nP. J. Lucey, Attorney General, Thomas J. Young, and John J. Poulton, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0141-01",
  "first_page_order": 141,
  "last_page_order": 143
}