Williams v. State

¹⁹ Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is the defendant’s appeal from a judgment rendered in the Baltimore City Court, in favor of the plaintiff, for the sum of $436.80, on a ease stated, under the provisions of section 124 of article 75 of the Code. The single purpose of the proceeding is to have a proper determination .and construction of section 115 of article 81 of the Code, relating to the State tax on commissions of executors and administrators. Section 115 of article 81, volume 4 of Bagby’s Code, provides, that “all commissions1 allowed to executors and administrators by the orphans’ courts of this State shall be subject to a tax, for the benefit of the State, of an amount equal to one per cent-, on the first twenty thousand ($20,000) dollars of the estate, and one-fifth of one per cent, on the balance of the estate, and, said tax shall be due and payable whether the executor or administrator waives his commissions or not, it being hereby intended that no commissions less than this tax shall be allowed by the orphans’ court of this State1 and that no waiver of commissions shall defeat the payment of this tax.

And when a legacy is left to an executor1 by way of compensation, such legacy shall be reckoned in the commissions fixed by the court.” The facts of the special case are stated in the plaintiff’s declaration, and are in part, as follows: William E. Airey of Baltimore City died on January 4th, 1920, leaving" a last will and testament, which was duly offered for probate in the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City, and a caveat to the will was filed thereto1, and thereupon J. Maude Watson and Eobert W. Williams were, appointed administrators pendente lite of his estate; that tire validity of the will was finally sustained by a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals of Maryland ( 137 Md. 385 ). That on May 2, 1921, the administrators pendenite lite, filed a first and final account, which, so far as is here material ■was as follows: ²⁰ Total assets o£ estate to April 1st, 1921... $143,646.13 Commissions at the rate of 5% on first $20,000 of estate and 1% on remainder, allowed to these administrators by the Orphans’ Court..............$2,236.46 Other expenses aggregating...... 3,008.28 - 5,244.74 Balance of estate transferred to Robert W. Williams, Administrator c. t. a........$138,401.39 The State tax on the aforegoing commissions at the'rate of one per cent, on the first $20,000 and.one-fifth of one per cent, on the balance of the total estate, amounting to $447.29, has been paid. Robert W. Williams was appointed administrator e. t. a. of tlie estate by the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City on April 4, 1921. On May 2, 1921, he filed a first and final account, which, so far as is here material, was as follows: Amount received from administrators pendente lite...........................$138,401.39 Additional assets collected by administrator c. t. a. aggregating................... 11,438.17 Total assets received by administrator c.t. a............................$149,839.58 The commissions allowed the administrator c. t. aas set forth in the account, were as follows: “Paid commissions at the rate of 5% on first $20,000 of estate and 1% upon remainder, allowed to this administrator by Orphans’ Court” — $2,298.40.

The administrator c. t. a,, has paid to the State a tax of $22.88, being calculated at the rate of one-fifth of one per cent, on the additional items shown by the aforegoing account to have been collected by him, i. e., on $11,438.17. This payment was made without prejudice to the State’s right to col ²¹ leet any additional tax that may be found to be due. The State claims that the tax should have been calculated at the rate of one per cent, on the first $20,000' and one-fifth of one per cent, on the balance of tbe whole estate shown to have been received by tbe administrator c. t. a. in the aforegoing account, i. e., on $149,839.56. On this contention the total tax payable by Robert W. Williams, administrator c. t. a., would have been $459.68 instead of $22.88, paid by him as above stated without prejudice, which would leave a balance due tbe State of $436.80, and this suit is» brought» to have determined upon the facts», thus stated, whe»ther or1 not out of his commissions of $2,298.53, the defendant administrator should pay the State, appointing him, either $22.88 or $459.68, or, as» stated in the declaration, does» Robert W. Williams, adminis»trato»r c. t. a. of the estate of William F. Airpy, owe to the S»tate of Maryland the sum of $436.80, as a further tax on commissions allowed to him as» administrator c. i. a. in his first and final account by the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore ?

The contention upon the part of the State is that the tax fixed by the statute is payable on each sncoeeeding adminis1tration of the estate, whereas the appellant claims that if the tax is paid once, it cannot be collected a second time from any other representative of the same estate. The rule of law, in the» construing of statutes, is well settled and it is this, that when the language- used in the- act is plain, clear, and unambiguous, it is tbe manifest duty of the court to give it force, and no construction ought to» be made against the express letter of the statute^ for nothing can so express the meaning of the makers as their own direct» words. In