Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

CASES REPORTED

(40 Sup.Ct.)

Page

Page

United States, Schumann v..

United States, Seaboard Air Line Ry. v...
United States v. Seufert Bros. Co.......
United States, Shaffer v....
United States, Showalter v...

162

178

United States, Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. 182
United States v. Simpson..
United States, Simpson v......
United States, Sneierson v...

57 Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Common-
14
wealth of Virginia ex rel. Town of Cov-
ington

10 Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Common-
wealth of Virginia ex rel. City of Clifton
Forge

179

179

....

364 Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Common-
367 wealth of Virginia ex rel. Town of Lex-

584

ington

179

United States v. Southern Pac. Co.... United States v. Sprinkle.

345

47 Virginia & West Virginia Coal Co. v.
Charles

345

United States v. Standard Brewery.

139 Virginian R. Co. v. Halsted.

10

United States, Stilson v.....

28 Vogel v. United States..

259

United States, Stroud v.... United States, Stroud v.... United States, Sukys v..... United States, Thompson v.. United States v. Thompson. United States, Tiffany V.... United States, Trader v....

50 V. & S. Bottle Co. v. Mountain Gas Co... 218

176

28

Wabash R. Co. v. Sheehan.

342

57

289

Wade, Turner v...

177

394

Wagner v. City of Covington..

93

119

Wait, Ashley v.

53

Wallace v. Hines..

435

United States, Tredwell v....

587

United States, Uhl v...

584

Wanamaker, New York, Meccano, Limit

United States v. United States Steel Corporation

ed, v....

463

293

Ward v. Board of Com'rs of Love County,
Okl.

419

United States, Vedin v..

11

United States, Vogel v...

259

United States v. Wayne County, Ky..

394

United States, Weitzel v.....

485

Ward, Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v.. Warren-Godwin Lumber Co., Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v...

275

69

United States, Werner v.....

259

Wartell v. Moore..

342

Washburn

United States, Wessels v...

481

v. Gillespie.

396

United States, White v....

587

Washington v. Belknap.

118

United States, Wimmer v...

586

Washington, Great Northern R. Co. v...

177

United States, Wine v......

481

Wayne County, Ky., United States v...

394

United States, Workin v....

9

Weaver, Bragg v..

62

United States, Zucker v...

585

United States ex rel. Alaska Smokeless Coal Co. v. Lane..

Weber Electric Co. v. E. H. Freeman Electric Co....

483

33

Weidhorn v. Levy.

534

United States ex rel. Johnson v. Payne. United States ex rel. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission

513

Weinberg, Jay v..

396

Weiner, United States ex rel., v. Gordon.. 16

Weissengoff v. Davis...

54

Weitzel v. United States.

485

187

United States ex rel. Newton, Lane v..... United States ex rel. Sykes v. Lane. United States ex rel. Weiner v. Gordon.. United States ex rel. Williams v. Seufert Bros. Co....

394

Welbeck Hall, The.

393

484

Welbeck Hall, The..

394

16

Welch Grape Juice Co., Frey & Son v..

56

Wellington, Hamlin v...

14

178

Werner v. United States.

259

[blocks in formation]

United States for Use of American Sheet Metal Works, National Surety Co. v... United States Steel Corporation, United States

Wessels v. United States.

481

[blocks in formation]

cases

Upper Sandusky, Hardin-Wyandot Lighting Co. v...

104

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Brown.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Boegli.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Poston.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Speight...
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Southwick.
Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., Com-
monwealth of Virginia ex rel., National
Surety Co. v...

167

460

482

219

344

13

Ute Indians, United States, Rex v.......

181

Westmeath, The..

353

West Virginia, Ohio v..

357

West Virginia, Pennsylvania v..

357

Vallely, Galbraith v...

344

Wheeler v. Taft...

584

Vandenburgh, Concrete Steel Co. v..... Vandenburgh v. Electric Welding Co... Van de Zande, Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v.

11

White v. Chin Fong.

14

587

White v. Chin Fong.

449

10

White, Jeong Quey How v..

180

Van de Zande. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v.

395

White, Jung Back Sing v...

54

Vargas v. F. M. Yaptico & Co.....

586

White, Kwock Jan Fat v...

566

Vaughn, Clark Knitting Co. v...

44

White v. United States..

587

Veasey, Peters v...

65

White, Yee Won v.....

180

Vedin v. United States.

11

White Oak Fuel Co. v. Carter.

16

Viegelmann & Co. v. Insular Collector of Customs

Wilbur v. State of Oregon..

16

56

Willem v. Bradley.

395

Virginia ex rel. City of Buena Vista, Virginia-Western Power Co. v....

Village of Upper Sandusky, Hardin-Wyandot Lighting Co. v..

104

William Moore Knitting Co., Roxford Knitting Co. v.....

588

179

William T. Joyce Co., State of Louisiana v. 481 Williams, First Nat. Bank of Canton, Pa.,

Virginia ex rel. City of Clifton Forge, Vir

V.

372

....

179

179

Williams, St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v... Williams, United States ex rel., v. Seufert 178 Williams v. Salter..

71

53

ginia-Western Power Co. v.....

Virginia ex rel. Town of Covington, Virgin

ia-Western Power Co. v....

Virginia ex rel. Town of Lexington, Virgin-
ia-Western Power Co. v....
Virginia ex rel. Westinghouse Electric &
Mfg. Co., National Surety Co. v.......
Virginia, F. S. Royster Guano Co. v.....
Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Common-
wealth of Virginia ex rel. City of Buena
Vista

Willson v. McDonnell.

583

179

Wilson v. Benham...

219

Wimmer v. United States.

586

[blocks in formation]

Winchester v. Winchester Waterworks Co. 123 Winchester Waterworks Co., City of Win

chester

V......

123

179

Window Glass Mach. Co., Consolidated Window Glass Co. v..

179

Window Glass Mach. Co., Kane Glass Co.

v.

Window Glass Mach. Co., Pennsylvania
Window Glass Co. v......

Wine v. United States...
Wintroath, Chapman v.......
Wisconsin, Minnesota v.....

Wisconsin ex rel. City of Milwaukee, Mil-
waukee Electric Ry. & Light Co. v.....
Wisconsin Trust Co., Munday ..........
Woerheide, Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v...
Woodward & Lothrop, Union Trust Co. v.

Workin v. United States...........
Worth Bros. Co. v. Lederer.........::
Worth Bros. Co. v. Lederer.

Wright, Central of Georgia R. Co. v....
Wysong & Miles Co. v. Bank of North
America, Philadelphia, Pa........

..

Page

179 Am

179

234

Page

Wysong & Miles Co. v. Bank of North America, Philadelphia, Pa............. 343 Wysong & Miles Co. v. Planters' Nat. Bank of Richmond, Va.....

of Richmond, Va..

481 Wysong & Miles Co. v. Planters' Nat. Bank 313 W. & S. Job & Co., Oneida Nav. Corporation v.....

[blocks in formation]

13

343

357

586

180

Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., Travis v........ 228
Yaptico & Co., Vargas v..
Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Nichols & Co.... 219
Yee Won v. White...
Ynchausti & Co., Board of Public Utility
York & Whitney Co. v. New York Cent. &
H. R. R. Co.........

15 Com'rs v....

282

1

..

277

481

13 Zuber, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v........ 119 Zucker v. United States........ 585

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

OCTOBER TERM, 1919

(250 U. S. 519)
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v.
WRIGHT, Comptroller General of

State of Georgia.

(Argued Jan. 21, 1919. Reversed with Costs Feb. 3, 1919. Rehearing Granted as to Certain Specified Points and Denied as to All Others Order of April 21, 1919. Reargued Oct. 13 and 14, 1919. Decided Oct. 27, 1919.)

No. 30.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
137-TAXATION
365-MERGER OF RAILROADS NOT AFFECTING

EXEMPTION FROM TAXES BY CHARTER.

Under the charters granted in 1845 to the Southern and the Muscogee Railroad Companies, making their roads taxable only in a certain way and to a certain amount, held. though the companies were later merged, there could be no further taxation of the leasehold

of the lessee of the roads.

Mr. Justice McKenna, Mr. Justice Pitney, Mr. Justice Brandeis, and Mr. Justice Clarke dissenting.

*524

from taxation upon the fee of the same roads. Wright v. Central of Georgia R. Co., *236 U. S. 674, 35 Sup. Ct. 471, 59 L. Ed. 781. A rehearing was granted on the question whether the exemption thus adjudged to exist extends to portions of the plaintiff in error's road let to it by the Southwestern Railroad and the Muscogee Railroad, which were assumed to be embraced in the decision but were not specially discussed. The consideration of the court was directed especially to the charter of the Augusta and Waynesboro Rail Road granted in 1838 and having features characteristic of the conception of railroads then entertained. 236 U. S. 678, 679, 35 Sup. Ct. 471, 59 L. Ed. 781. It is argued that the charters of the other lessors just named, granted at a later date, even when limiting the corporation's liability to taxation in similar words, should be construed in a different way.

The charters of the Southwestern and the Muscogee Railroads were not granted until

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State 1845, and while like the earlier ones they proof Georgia.

vided that the said railway and its appurOn rehearing. Decree on original hearing | tenances and all property therewith connect

(248 U. S. 525, 39 Sup. Ct. 181, 63 L. Ed. 401)

to stand.

See, also, 249 U. S. 590, 39 Sup. Ct. 387, 63 L. Ed. 791.

*520

*Messrs. T. M. Cunningham, Jr., and A. R. Lawton, both of Savannah, Ga., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Warren Grice, of Macon, Ga., for defendant in error.

*523

ed, or the capital stock of the said Rail Road Company, should not be subject to be taxed higher than one-half of one per cent. upon its annual net income, they did not contain the provisions that showed the Legislature in 1838 to contemplate indifferently a revenue derived from using, from sharing, or from letting the special privileges granted-provisions that were of weight in the decision of the Court.

But we are satisfied that between 1838 and

*Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opin- 1845 there had been no such change in the ion of the Court.

policy of Georgia as to require the same words to be given a different meaning at the later date from that which we have decided that they had at the former. Circumstances had not changed when express power to let was given in 1852. The Muscogee was merg

In this case it was decided at the last term that the plaintiff in error, the railway company, was exempt from liability to taxation as lessee of certain roads, 248 U. S. 525, 39 Sup. Ct. 181, 63 L. Ed. 401, as it had been decided a few terms earlier that it was exempted in the Southwestern under an act of

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes 40 SUP. Cr.-1

1856, but the exemption remained superior | Amendment, recognizing a distinction between to legislative change. Southwestern R. R. citizenship of the United States and citizenship Co. v. Georgia, 92 U. S. 676, 23 L. Ed. 762. of one of the states, places beyond abridg As remarked by Chief Justice Waite in a ment by the states, are those which owe their like suit between the same parties, the lan-existence to the federal government, its national character, its Constitution, or its laws. guage of the exempting clause is somewhat unusual, and means the railroad specified in 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 206 (1), 207(4)— STATE TRANSFER TAX DOES NOT INFRINGE ON RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

*525 the charter and none other. Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Georgia, 116 U. S. 231, 6 Sup. Ct. 375, 29 L. Ed. 626. But conversely it means that that road shall be exempt while owned by this corporation whether used or

demised.

Act N. J. April 20, 1909 (P. L. p. 325), as amended by Act April 9, 1914 (P. L. p. 267), regulating and taxing the right to succeed to property in the state on the death of a nonresident owner, does not infringe any of the rights of citizenship, either of the states or of the United States, secured by Const. art. 4, § 2, par. 1, or the Fourteenth Amendment.

DISCRIMINATION IN TRANSFER TAX BASED ON
CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENCE NOT UNCONSTI-
TUTIONAL.

We see nothing in the later statutes or Constitutions that attempts to substitute a new contract or to impair the obligation of the one originally made. Different opinions 5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 206(1), 207(4) — were entertained on the main question which this rehearing does not reopen; but taking that as settled we cannot believe that any real distinction can be made between the charter of the Augusta and Waynesboro and those of the Southwestern and Muscogee roads.

The decree of last term must stand and that of the state Court must be reversed. Decree reversed.

Mr. Justice MCKENNA, Mr. Justice PITNEY, Mr. Justice BRANDEIS and Mr. Justice CLARKE dissent.

(250 U. S. 525)

MAXWELL et al. v. BUGBEE, Comptroller of Treasury of State of New Jersey et al. HILL v. SAME.

(Argued March 18 and 19, 1919. Decided Oct. 27, 1919.)

Nos. 43, 238.

1. TAXATION 856, 859(1)-TRANSFER TAX IS ON RIGHT OF SUCCESSION WITHIN TAXING POWER OF STATE.

The tax imposed by Act N. J. April 20, 1909 (P. L. p. 325), §§ 1, 12, as amended by Act April 9, 1914 (P. L. p. 267), on the transfer by will or intestate law of property in the state of a nonresident decedent, is on the right of succession, a creature of local laws, and within the taxing power of the state, and is constitutional.

Any discrimination in Act N. J. April 20, 1909 (P. L. p. 325) §§ 1, 12, as amended by Act April 9, 1914 (P. L. p. 267), being based on deceased's residence within or without the state, Const. art. 4, § 2, par. 1, and the Fourteenth Amendment, as to privileges and immunities of citizens, are not strictly applicable. 6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

283-TRANSFER

TAX ON PROPERTY IN STATE OF NONRESIDENT
DECEDENT NOT WANTING IN DUE PROCESS.

Act N. J. April 20, 1909 (P. L. p. 325) §§ 1, 12, amended by Act April 9, 1914 (P. L. p. 267), by adopting as a measure of the tax on the transfer of property within the state of a nonresident decedent the proportion which does not in effect tax property beyond its juristhe local property bears to the entire estate, diction, and so amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.

7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 229(1)-TRANSFER
TAX ON PROPERTY IN STATE OF NONRESIDENT
DECEDENT NOT WANTING IN EQUAL PROTEC-
TION OF LAW.

The equal protection of the law, which must be decided as between resident and nonresident decedents as classes, rather than by the incidents of a particular estate, is not denied by Act N. J. April 20, 1909 (P. L. p. 325), §§ 1, 12, as amended by Act April 9, 1914 (P. L. p. 267), adopting as the measure of the tax on the transfer of property within the state of a nonresident decedent the proportion of the local estate in certain property to the entire estate; the difference in the manner of assessment as between the two classes not being so wholly arbitrary and unreasonable as to be beyond the

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 207(1) STATES legitimate authority of the state.

PROHIBITED TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CITI-
ZENS OF OTHER STATES.

Const. art. 4, § 2, par. 1, is intended to prevent discrimination by the several states against citizens of other states in respect of the fundamental privilege of citizenship.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

206(1)—PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PRESERVED TO CITIZENS

OF THE UNITED STATES ARE THOSE BASED
ON ITS CONSTITUTION AND LAWS.
The privileges and immunities of citizens
of the United States, which the Fourteenth

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr.
Justice Van Devanter, and Mr. Justice Mc-
Reynolds, dissenting.

In Error to the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey.

Certiorari by Lawrence Maxwell and another, executors of James McDonald, deceased, against Newton A. K. Bugbee, Comptroller of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey, and another, to review an assess

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

(40 Sup.Ct.)

ment of a transfer tax, with a like proceed-, testate law, of property within the state, and

ing by Louis W. Hill, administrator of James J. Hill, deceased. In the former case, judg. ment of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, affirming the tax, was affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals of that state (90 N. J. Law, 707, 101 Atl. 248); and in the latter case, judgment of the Supreme Court, modifying the tax, was affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals (92 N. J. Law, 514, 105 Atl. 893). Prosecutors bring error. Affirmed. In No. 43:

Messrs. Joseph Coult, of Newark, N. J., Lawrence Maxwell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and William A. Smith, of Newark, N. J., for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. John W. Westcott, of Camden, N. J., and John R. Hardin, of Newark, N. J., for defendants in error.

In No. 238:

the decedent was a nonresident of the state at the time of his death."

The taxes thus imposed were at the rate of 5 per cent. upon the clear market value of the property, with exemptions not necessary to be specified, and were payable to the treasurer for the use of the state of New Jersey.

And by section 12 it was provided that upon the transfer of property in that state of a nonresident decedent, if all or any part of the estate, wherever situated, passed to persons or corporations who would have been taxable under the act if the decedent had been a resident of the state, such property located within the state was made subject to a tax bearing the same ratio to the entire tax which the estate of such decedent would have been subject to under the act if the nonresident decedent had been a resident of the state, as the property located in the state

*532

Messrs. E. C. Lindley, of St. Paul, Minn., and Joseph Coult and William A. Smith, both of Newark, N. J., for plaintiff in error. Mr. John R. Hardin, of Newark, N. J., for decedent wherever situated. defendants in error.

bore to the entire estate of such nonresident

The act, having first been amended by an act approved March 26, 1914 (P. L. 1914, p. *Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of 91), not necessary to be recited, was again

the Court.

530

These cases were argued and submitted together, involve the same constitutional questions, and may be disposed of in a single opinion. The attack is upon the inheritance tax law of the state of New Jersey, and is based upon certain provisions of the federal Constitution. The statute has reference to the method of imposing inheritance taxes under the laws of the state. The constitutionality of the law upon both state and federal grounds was upheld in the McDonald Case by

531

the Court of Errors and *Appeals. 90 N. J. Law, 707, 101 Atl. 248. In the Hill Case the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Jersey (91 N. J. Law, 454, 103 Atl. 861) was affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals (92 N. J. Law, 514, 105 Atl. 893).

The statute under consideration is an act

approved April 9, 1914, (P. L. 1914, p. 267), being an amendment to an act approved April 20, 1909 (P. L. 1909, p. 325), for taxing the transfer of property of resident and nonresident decedents by devise, bequest, descent, etc., in certain cases. The 1909 act is found in 4 Comp. Stat. N. J. p. 5301 et seq; the amendment, in 1 Supp. Comp. Stat. N. J. pp. 1538-1542. The act of 1909, in its first section, imposed a tax upon the transfer of any property, real and personal, of the value of $500 or over, or of any interest therein or income therefrom, in trust or otherwise, to per

sons or corporations including the following

cases:

"First. When the transfer is by will or by the intestate laws of this state from any person dying seized or possessed of the property while a resident of the state.

"Second. When the transfer is by will or in

amended by the act approved April 9, 1914, which is now under consideration (P. L. 1914, p. 267; 1 Supp. Comp. Stat. N. J. pp. 15381542). Sections 1 and 12 were amended, the former by confining the tax on the transfer of property within the state of nonresident decedents to real estate, tangible personal property and shares of stock of New Jersey corporations and of national banks located within the state; and by modifying the former rate of 5 per centum upon the clear market value of the property passing, which was subject to exemptions in favor of churches and other charitable institutions, and of parents, children, and other lineal descendants, etc., by making 5 per centum the applicable rate, but subject to numerous exceptions, and in the excepted cases imposing different rates, dependent upon the relationship of the beneficiary to the deceased and the amount of the property transferred. Thus:

"Property transferred to any child or children, husband or wife, of a decedent, or to the issue of any child or children of a decedent, shall be taxed at the rate of one per centum on any amount in excess of five thousand dollars, up to fifty thousand dollars; one and one-half per centum on any amount in excess to [of] fifty thousand dollars, up to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars; two per centum on any amount in excess of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, up to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars; and three per centum on any amount in excess of two hundred

and fifty thousand dollars."

The modified formula for computing the assessment upon the transfer of the estate of a nonresident decedent prescribed in section 12 as amended by the act under consideration, is as follows:

« FöregåendeFortsätt »