Skip to content


In the Goods Of: Gladstone (Deceased) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1876)ILR1Cal169
AppellantIn the Goods Of: Gladstone (Deceased)
Excerpt:
court fees act (vii of 1870), schedule i. clauses 11 and 12 - probate duty, exemption from--interest in partnership property. - .....be charged in respect to those properties, because, by some arrangement between the partners, mr. gladstone's share of the partnership assets has been paid to his estate in england, and probate duty has been paid in england upon that amount.2. the question thus raised by the petition has been referred to me, and i have requested pontifex, j., to sit with me, for the purpose of hearing counsel upon it.3. having now heard mr. shiell's argument, we are unable to discover any reason why mr. gladstone's share of the properties in question should be exempt from duty. they appear to have formed part of the assets belonging to the partnership, and it may very well be that the value of mr. gladstone's share in them may, by some arrangement, have been paid to his estate in money by the firm; but.....
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. In this case an unlimited grant of probate in the usual form has been granted to the executor of Mr. Murray Gladstone by PHEAR, J., and the only question which we have to decide is, whether any duty should be paid in respect to the two properties mentioned in the petition, viz., an indigo factory in Tirhoot, and a share in the premises Nos. 5 to 8 Olive Street, Calcutta, which formed part of the partnership property of the firm of Gillanders, Arbuthnot and Co., of which the testator, Mr. Murray Gladstone, was a member. It is stated in the petition, that Mr. Murray Gladstone was one of the persons to whom both these properties were conveyed, and it is therefore necessary, in order to enable the firm to deal with them, that probate of Mr. Gladstone's will should be taken out in this country; but it is contended that no duty should be charged in respect to those properties, because, by some arrangement between the partners, Mr. Gladstone's share of the partnership assets has been paid to his estate in England, and probate duty has been paid in England upon that amount.

2. The question thus raised by the petition has been referred to me, and I have requested Pontifex, J., to sit with me, for the purpose of hearing counsel upon it.

3. Having now heard Mr. Shiell's argument, we are unable to discover any reason why Mr. Gladstone's share of the properties in question should be exempt from duty. They appear to have formed part of the assets belonging to the partnership, and it may very well be that the value of Mr. Gladstone's share in them may, by some arrangement, have been paid to his estate in money by the firm; but that is no reason why they should be exempt from duty; and looking at the articles of partnership 1, a copy of which has been produced to us by the petitioner, we find no provision there which even affords a basis for Mr. Shiell's argument.

4. The prayer of the petition will therefore be refused, and the Crown will be entitled to the costs of the hearing.

1. The partnership agreement provided for the settlement and adjustment of the accounts, and the valuation of each partner's share in all the firms taking place at the head-office in Liverpool, the amount of the share being placed to the credit of the partners respectively in the books of Liverpool firm.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //