Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/602

 UNITED STATES V. LBYERICH. 587 �On June 7, 1864, Stephen Duncan executed to Charles D. Leverich and Henry S. Leverich a deed of personal property, consisting of stocks, bonds, railroad sbares, etc., to the amount of about $227,500, in trust, to take possession of the same, to collect the interest thereon, and to pay the income thereof to him- self and to his wife, in manner stated in the trust deed, until the death of the survivor of them, and thereafter to distribute the principal and any accumu- lated interest to his children. Charles D. Leverich, prior to and at the time of the execution of the deed of trust, had in his individual custody and pos- session all the property so conveyed. Both trustees signetl the trust deed accept- ing the trust, l9ut Henry S. Leverich never had the custody of any of the prop- erty, never received any of the proceeds of it, and never took any part in the execution of any of the duties imposed by the trust deed. The whole business of the trust was managed by Charles D. Leverich alone, who retained posses- sion of the property, collected the income, and paid it over as directed by the deed — in part to Stephen Duncan, until his death, in 1866, and in part to his wife, who died in 1868. Upon her death he distributed the whole property to and among the children of the grantor according to the terms of the trust. Charles D. Leverich died in 1876, and no tax was ever paid or claimed up to the time of his death. This suit to recover $8,805, the taxes alleged to be due upon the distribution Of the shares tO the children in 1868, was brought on September 13, 1879, against Henry S. Leverich, the surviving trustee, and the other defendants, who are the executors of the deceased trustee. �I am of opinion that no tax accrued to the government upon the shares distributed under this trust deed, under section 124, as claimed. This case does not corne under the first clause of the general words of that section, for the reason that the property here did not "pass after the passage of this aet from any person possessed of such prop- erty, either hy will or by the intestate laws of any state or territory." To come under the second clause of the general words of section 124 the case must be one of "a person having in charge or trust etc., made or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment after the death of the grantor, to any person or persons ; " and it must also come under some one of the five following subdivisions of that section. But the only persons described in any of those five sub- divisions are persons who, being entitled to the beneficiai interest in such property, also stand in a certain relationship "to the person, who died possessed of sivch property. " �Now, the facts here show that the grantor did not "die possessed" of said property. He had parted with the title to the property and the possession of it, by deed executed and delivered -several years before his death, and before the passage of the aet. The deed cre- ated a valid trust of personal property under the laws of this state, (1 Kev. St. p. 773, part 2, c. 4, tit. 4, §§ 1, 2; chapter 1, §§ 55, 60, p. ��� �
 * * * any personal property * * * transferred by deed,