Religious corporations in New York are now expressly exempted from this tax. So a society for the improvement of the moral condition of seamen is exempt under general law."

But the mere fact that a society or corporation not exempted by special charter or general law, is exempted upon a portion of its property is of no avail, and a bequest to a missionary society, known as "The Paulist Fathers," which could not show special or general exemption, was held liable."

6

So a charitable institution," a home for the aged, exacting an admission fee and requiring an applicant to make a will leaving all property to it, is not an alms-house under the general law, and an institution requiring pupils to pay, if they are able so to do, is not, it seems, a purely charitable institution within the meaning of an alms-house,' the theory being that any charge, however small, takes the claimant out of the alms-house class. In one case,

1 L. 1890, ch 553, Appendix.

2 Matter of Vanderbilt, 10 N. Y. Supp. 239.

3 Estate of Keith & Daily, 22 N.Y. St. Rep. 337; Matter of Vanderbilt, supra; Matter of Kennedy, N. Y. Law Jour. Apr. 25, 1890; Est. of Minturn, Id. July 2, 1890.

• Estate of Kavanagh, 24 N. Y. St. Rep. 404.

5 Now exempt by L. N. Y. 1890, ch. 553, Appendix.

6 Matter of Lenox, 9 N. Y. Supp. 895; Estate of Keech, 26 N. Y. St. Rep. 433; affd. as Matter of Keech, N. Y. Law Jour. July 7, 1890; Est. of Ellen Thompson, N. Y. Daily Reg. Nov. 14, 1889.

Estate of Hochster, N. Y. Law Jour. Jan. 22, 1890; and see Congregation v. City of New York, 1 N. Y. Supp. 35; People v. Barber, 42 Hun, 27; Matter of Vanderbilt, N. Y. Law Jour. Apr. 22, 1890; 10 N. Y. Supp. 239. See, also, Est. of Minturn, supra; Est. of Noyes, N. Y. Law Jour. July 5, 1890; Matter of Keech, supra.

this rule was carried to the extent of imposing the tax upon an institution which made a paltry charge for taking care of poor infants.1 .

2

In Pennsylvania, however, a college founded and maintained by donations, although taking a tuition fee, is a public charity and exempt, and in Virginia an orphan asylum exempt under general law from taxation is liable to the Inheritance Tax.s

The institution known as the Young Men's Christian Association is not a seminary of learning or house of religious worship, and therefore not exempt from taxation. A school house in the city of New York is not exempt, unless it belongs to the public school system, or be exclusively the property of an incorporated religious society. But a Geographical Society, the works of which are accessible at all times to the public, is a public library within the meaning of the general law, and is exempt." Under the English legacy acts there is a provision exempting books, prints, statues, coins, or works of art, bequeathed to certain institutions in trust, and where not to be sold." The phrase "public wor

1 Matter of Vanderbilt; Matter of Lenox, supra; Matter of Chittenden, N. Y. Law Jour. June 5, 1890.

2 Northampton Co. v. Lafayette College, 46 Leg. Int. 423. But see Wagner Institute v. Phila. 9 Cent. Rep. 617; 25 W. N. C. 437.

3 Miller v. Com. 27 Grat. 110; Barringer v. Cowan, 2 Jones' Eq. 436; Com. v. Herman, 16 W. N. C. 210, 212.

4 Matter of Vanderbilt, supra.

5 Church of St. Monica v. Mayor, &c. 119 N. Y. 91.

6 Am. Geographical Society v. Commissioners, 11 Hun, 505; Matter of Lenox, 9 N. Y. Supp. 895; Matter of Herr. 55 Hun,

ship" refers to the usual church services upon the Sabbath, open freely to the public, and in which any one may join.' The word "person," under these acts, includes a bequest to a corporation, and it is consequently not exempt.2

Third. The following legacies to various charitable, religious and other institutions or persons have been declared not exempt where such institutions were not exempted by general or special law; a bequest to a church to keep the graves of testator's ancestors and family in order; a gift to a pastor to say masses for the decedent."

3

Nor is a specific bequest to executors in trust to be used for masses for the decedent and her husband to be said by a priest exempt, not being made part of the funeral expenses," but where part of such funeral expenses is for a burial plot, it is exempt.

And the tax is payable where the bequest for masses is invalid in law and goes to a religious cor

1 Young Men's C. A. v. The Mayor, 113 N. Y. 187. See Matter of Van Kleeck, 29 N. Y. St. Rep. 383.

2 Miller v. Com. 27 Grat. 117.

3 See Catlin v. Trustees, 113 N. Y. 133; Matter of Miller, 5 Dem. 138; but see L. 1890, ch. 553, Appendix; Matter of Van Kleeck, supra.

4 Walter's Est. 3 Penn. C. R. 447. In re Birkett, 9 Ch. Div. 576; Hoare v. Osborne, L. R. Eq. 585.

5 Seibert's Appeal, 18 W. N. C. 276; Rhymes' Appeal, 93 Pa. St. 142; Stewart v. Green, Ir. Rep, 5 Eq. 470.

• Estate of Black, 24 N. Y. St. Rep. 341; s. c. 1 Con. Surr. Rep. 477. As to the validity of such bequests, see Holland v. Allcock, 108 N. Y. 312; Power v. Cassidy, 79 Id. 602; Prichard v. Thompson, 95 Id. 76.

7 Matter of Vinot, 26 N. Y. St. Rep. 610.

poration which is made residuary legatee under the will.1

So a bequest to a mutual benefit assurance association, which is not exempted under general or special law, is liable.

2

But money paid by a beneficiary society to a deceased member's next of kin, not being any part of decedent's estate, is not within the act.3

5. Foreign corporations.-The words " now exempted by law from taxation" refer to exemptions under the laws of the State imposing the tax, and the fact that a foreign corporation, which is a beneficiary under the will of a resident of the taxing State, is exempt from taxation under the laws of the jurisdiction of the corporation's origin, does not withdraw it from the operation of the inheritance tax. It seems that there is no comity which requires that corporations existing under the laws of other States should be placed under a more favorable position than domestic corporations with respect to taxation. Hence it would seem that such foreign corporations are still liable

1 Estate of Devlin, N. Y. Daily Reg. Oct. 15, 1889.

2 Estate of Jones, 18 N. Y. St. Rep. 383; I Con. Surr. Rep. 125. See, also, Matter of Hunter, 11 N. Y. St. Rep. 700; s. c. Church Charity v. People, 6 Dem. 154; Atty. Gen. v. Abdy. 1 H. & C. 266.

3 Vogel's Estate, 1 Penn. C. R. 352; Folmer's App. 87 Penn. St. 133.

Catlin v. Trustees, 113 N. Y. 133; Matter of McCoskey, 6 Dem. 438; s. c. 17 N. Y. St. Rep. 829; Matter of Vanderbilt, 10 N. Y. Supp. 239; N. Y. Law Jour. Apr. 22, 1890; Est. of Noyes, Id. July 5, 1890; People v. McLean, 80 N. Y. 254; Carpenter v. Penn. 17 Howard, 462; People v. Fire Assn. 92 N. Y. 311.

in this State, notwithstanding the provisions of the recent statute.1

§ 6. Adopted and illegitimate children.-The laws of New York and Connecticut relieve adopted children from the collateral inheritance tax, and in New York, those persons to whom the deceased, for not less than ten years prior to his death, stood in the mutually acknowledged relation of a parent, are excepted, and the law of Connecticut exempts the lineal descendants of such adopted children.

Under this subject we will consider, first, the cases that have arisen respecting adopted children; second, such as come within the class of persons standing in the mutually acknowledged relation of parent to the legatee or devisee, and third, such as concern illegitimate children.

The word "children," in these acts, does not include adopted children, but merely relates to such as are children in fact of decedent and born in lawful wedlock. Such adopted children are therefore liable to the tax, where not expressly exempted.

2

In New York, owing to the passage of the amendatory act of 1887, relieving adopted children, the law became somewhat involved as to those adopted children who were liable under the previous act of 1885, but it has been held that as the former act did not repeal the latter, but was simply amendatory thereof, and not retro-active, only bequests to the adopted children of decedent dying after the act of

2 Matter of Miller, 110 N. Y. 216; affg. 47 Hun, 394; 6 Dem. 119; Com. v. Nancrede, 32 Pa. St. 389; Tharp v. Com. 50 Id. 500; Packard's App. 37 Leg. Int. 135.