Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/394

 380 FEDERAL REPORTER. �foreclosure is a means by which the plaintiffs place themselves in proper position to attack the deed. It would be an unnecessary delay to compel the plaintiff to obtain a decree of foreclosure, and then to commence the suit which is to determine the only seriously- mooted question in the litigation. The law's necessary delay fre- quently causes ineonvenience and injury to suitors. Courts should be careful not to create delay and multiply expenses by unnecessary technicalities. �If the questions are severed the severance will unnecessarily post- pone the adjudication of the substantial and vital question in dispute, while the union of the questions will subject the defendants to n& ineonvenience and to no additional expense. �The second cause of demurrer is overruled. ���United States v. Hazaed and others, Executors.* �[Circuit Court, E. D. Fennsylvania. July 8, 1881.) �1. Tax on Legacibs— When it Accetjed— Acts op CoNaBEss. �By the act of congress of June 30, 1864, relating to legacy and succession: taxes, as modified by the act of July 13, 1866, no tax was imposed until the benefioiaries under the will, or intestate laws, came to the possession or enjoy- ment of their property. �2. Same — Similarity of Pbovisions as to Ijegact and Succession Taxes. �The provisions of the act in this respect were substantially the same with regard to the legacy tax as with regard to the succession tax, and the decision in Glafj) v. Mason, 94 U. S. 589, relating to the latter, applies equally to the former. �3. Same — Legacies Vesting in Possession Aptbb Rbpbai, op Act. �The act of 1874, unlike the act of 1862, created no lien or charge until the government was authorized to demand the tax, and hence legacies which did not vest in possession or enjoyment until after the repeal of the act are not liable to the tax. �Motion for judgment in a suit brought by the United States to recover a legacy tax. The jury, by a special verdict, found substan- tially the following facts : �Erskine Haz ird died February 14, 1865, leaving personal estate valued at $163,046.42. By his will he gave to bis wife the full use and enjoyment of all his estate and property during her life, and he directed that at her death the remainder of his property be divided equally in shares among such of his cliildien as migbt then be living and the familles of those who might have died leaving issue. He furtlier directed that the shares which should thus fall to two of his daughters (naming them) should be placed with a trusf �♦Reported by Frank P, Prichard, Esq., of the PMlaLlelphia bar. ��� �