Willmore Coal Co., Brown v. (209 U. S. 259

Wilson v. Erie R. Co. (209 U. S. 540). 239 Wilson, McCabe & Steen Const. Co. v. (209 U. S. 275)..

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

OCTOBER TERM, 1907.

(207 U. S. 43)

ADELAIDE V. TILT, Benjamin B. Tilt, Jo- | the executors, renders repugnant to the seph W. Congdon, and John R. Curran, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament and Codicil of Albert Tilt, Deceased, Plffs. in Err.,

V.

full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution-where no attack on the jurisdiction of the New Jersey courts was made -the subsequent assessment, under N. Y. Laws 1896, chap. 908, upon the personal

OTTO KELSEY, Comptroller of the State of estate of the decedent as a resident of New

New York.

-how raised. 1. The objection that no Federal right was "specially set up and claimed" within the meaning of U. S. Rev. Stat. § 709 (U. S.

York, of a succession tax, which, under § 222 of that act, is made a lien on the property and a personal obligation of the transferees and executors.

[No. 18.]

Decided October 21, 1907.

IN ERROR to the Surrogate's Court of the

Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 575), governing the Argued and submitted January 28, 1907. appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court over state courts, cannot successfully be maintained, where judicial proceedings in New Jersey were clearly relied upon in New York by executors in an "appeal to the surrogate" as a defense to the assessment of the New York transfer tax, although such right was not in terms stated to be one claimed under the Federal Constitution, especially where the constitutional right was specifically claimed in writing while the surrogate still had the "appeal" under consideration, and its denial was made the subject of exceptions.*

Judgment of sister state- full faith and credit.

2. The full faith and credit due the probate proceedings of the New Jersey courts do not require that the courts of New York shall be bound by the adjudication of the New Jersey courts on the question of dom

County and State of New York to review a judgment entered in pursuance of an order of the Court of Appeals of that state, affirming a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, which

had in turn affirmed the order of the surro-
gate, assessing a succession tax upon the
personal estate of a decedent. Reversed.
See same case below in court of appeals,
182 N. Y. 557, 75 N. E. 1134.

*Statement by Mr. Justice Moody:

This is a writ of error from this court to

the surrogates' court of the county and state of New York, to review a judgment entered in that court in pursuance of an order of the court of appeals of that state. The judgment assessed a succession tax upon the personal estate of Albert Tilt, deceased, upon the ground that he was, at the time of his death, a resident of the state of New York. Before the assessment of the tax the estate of Tilt, who died testate, was fully administered in the courts of New Jersey, where the will was probated. In the course

Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Courts, §8 1080-1085. tEd. Note-For cases in point, see vol. 30, Cent. Dig. Judgment, §§ 1496, 1500. 28 S.C.-1.

*47

*46

of the administration all the personal prop- | claims against the estate. On the expiration erty, after paying debts, taxes, and charges of this time a further order was made, that of administration, was distributed by the all creditors who had neglected to bring in executors to the beneficiaries under the will. their claims and demands should "be forever A reversal of the judgment of the surrogates' barred from their action therefor against court is sought for the reason that it did the executors of said deceased." Succession not give full faith and credit to the judicial taxes, imposed by the law of New Jersey proceedings of the state of New Jersey, as and the law of the United States, and all required by the Constitution and laws of the debts, were paid. The executors presented United States. their accounts to the orphans' court of the county, and that court, acting within its jurisdiction, on June 20, 1901, allowed the accounts and directed the distribution of the estate, according to the terms of the will. The executors made the distribution in conformity with the court's order, thereby part

Mr. William G. Wilson for plaintiffs in

error.

Mr. George M. Judd for defendant in

error.

*Mr. Justice Moody delivered the opinion ing with all the property of the testator

of the court:

which had been in their hands. After the distribution had been accomplished, the state of New York for the first time made known its claim for a transfer tax. The comptroller of the state filed his petition with the surrogate of the county of New York. In response to this petition, on August 16, 1901, Robert Mazet was appointed by the surrogate as appraiser, to fix the fair market value of the property of Albert Tilt, deceased. This was done with the view of ascertaining the amount of a transfer tax due under a section of a statute providing for such a tax "when the transfer is by will or by the intestate laws of this state from any person dying seised and possessed of the property while a resident of the state." On March 6, 1903, Mazet filed his report in the surrogate's court. The material part of this report was: First, that the net personal property of the deceased "subject to tax herein" was, at the time of his death, of the fair market value of $1,056,951.22; second,

In the disposition of this case we are somewhat embarrassed by our ignorance of the reasons which controlled the decision of the highest court of the state. The opinion of the surrogate was very brief. His judgment was affirmed upon appeal successively by the supreme court and the court of appeals,-in each court without an opinion and with two judges dissenting. The record shows the following facts: Albert Tilt was engaged in business as a silk manufacturer in Paterson, New Jersey, until the time of his death. Until 1888 he was a resident and citizen of Paterson. In that year he removed to New York city, became a resident and citizen of New York, and remained such until some time in the year 1899. He died in New York on May 2, 1900. His residence and citizenship at the time of his death was in dispute. For many years he had owned a house in New York City, where he lived during the greater part of the year, and another house in Roxbury, New Jersey, where he lived dur-that Tilt was a resident of New York City at ing the summer and early autumn. It is contended by the executors of his will, the plaintiffs in error, that in the last year of his life he changed his domicil from New York City to Roxbury, and that at the time

of his death he was domiciled in New Jer

sey. On the other hand it is contended by the comptroller of New York, the defendant in error, that his domicil continued until

his death to be in New York. Upon this question the evidence was conflicting.

the time of his death; third, that he left a will which had been "duly admitted to probate in the surrogate's court of the county of Morris, state of New Jersey;" fourth, after stating the disposition of his property made by the testator by this will, the herein" at its fair market value at the report appraised the estate "subject to tax amount already stated. On June 15, 1903, the surrogate entered an order adopting the value of the property reported by the ap

After the death of Mr. Tilt, his will was admitted to probate by the surrogate of Mor-praiser and assessing the amount of the ris county, New Jersey, who by law had jurisdiction to do this if the testator resided in the county at the time of his death. The petition for probate described the testator as "late of the township of Roxbury, in said county," and the letters testamentary granted on May 23, 1900, by the surrogate, described him as "late of the county of Morris, deceased." An order was made fixing a time within which creditors must prove

transfer tax specifically on each bequest contained in the will. The total tax amounted to about $13,000. On August 10, 1903, a paper, entitled "Appeal to the Surrogate." was filed by the executors. This paper gave notice of an appeal to the surrogate from the appraisement, assessment, and determination of the transfer tax, and from the surrogate's own order of June 15. The only ground of appeal which need be stated here

the Constitution of the United States, full faith and credit must be given to the probate of said will and codicil of said Albert Tilt in the state of New Jersey, and to the accounting and distribution made by his executors under the decree of the orphans' court of Morris county in said state, of the estate of said Albert Tilt as a resident of New Jersey at the time of his death. (21) To the refusal of the said surrogate to find, as a conclusion of law, that none of the personal estate of said Albert Tilt is subject to the payment of a transfer tax under the laws of the state of New York, excepting only such of his personal estate as was actually within the state of New York at the time of his death." An appeal was then taken, and, as already stated, the action of the surrogate was affirmed by the supreme court and the court of appeals. The proceedings before the surrogate are somewhat fully set forth, because it is contended that no Federal question was properly and seasonably raised in the state courts. We think, however, that a right under the Constitution of the United States was specially set up and claimed by the executors, as required by 709 of the Revised States (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 575), and denied by the highest court of the state, and that therefore we have authority to re-examine the decision. It appears clearly in the paper entitled "Appeal to the Surrogate" that the execu

is the fifth, which alleged "that the right to assess or impose a tax under the laws of the state of New York upon the transfer of the property of the testator, if there ever was any such right, was barred before the commencement of this proceeding, by a decree of the orphans' court of Morris county, New Jersey, a court of competent jurisdiction, made on the 25th day of February, 1901, barring all claims against the said testator or his estate which had not been presented and proved to said executors, pursuant to public notice heretofore given and published, as prescribed by the laws of the state of New Jersey; and by the further decree of the same court, made on the 20th day of June, 1901, directing the distribution of the estate of said testator in the hands of said executors, according to the terms of the will of the said Albert Tilt, deceased; in obedience to which the said executors, without any notice or knowledge of any claim or liability for the payment of a transfer tax under the laws of the state of New York, distributed the said estate, so that there was not, at the time of the commencement of this proceeding, and is not now, any property of the said estate in the hands of said executors." It was then agreed by counsel that the surrogate should determine on affidavits whether or not Albert Tilt was a resident of New York at the time of his death. Pending the consideration of this question the executor request-tors relied upon the judicial proceedings in ed in writing certain findings of facts and conclusions of law, of which only two need be stated here. They are as follows: (2) "Under the Constitution of the United States full faith and credit must be given to the probate of said will and codicil of said Albert Tilt in the state of New Jersey, and to the accounting and distribution made by his executors under the decree of the orphans' court of Morris county, in said state, of the estate of said Albert Tilt as a resident of New Jersey at the time of his death." (3) "None of the personal estate of said Albert Tilt is subject to the payment of a transfer tax under the laws of the state of New York, excepting only such of his personal estate as was actually within | the state of New York at the time of his death." These requests were refused by the surrogate, who, in a short opinion, found as a fact that Tilt was a resident of New York at the time of his death, and ruled that his personal estate, wherever situated, was subject to the payment of a transfer tax under the laws of New York. An order was accordingly entered affirming the order of June 15. Thereupon the executors filed exceptions, the last two of which were as follows: (20) "To the refusal of the said surrogate to find, as a conclusion of law, that, under

New Jersey as a defense to the assessment of*the New York tax. They "specially set up and claimed" a right under those proceedings, though it was not in terms stated to be a right claimed under the Constitution. This, in the case of a judgment of the court of another state, has been held to be a sufficient compliance with the statute. Great Western Teleg. Co. v. Purdy, 162 U. S. 329, 40 L. ed. 986, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 810; Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 175, 45 L. ed. 804, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 551; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 15, 47 L. ed. 366, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237; and see the remark of the Chief Justice in Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, at page 311, 47 L. ed. 480, at page 485, 63 L.R.A. 33, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375. Moreover, while the surrogate still had the appeal under consideration and undecided, requests in writing were made to him which clearly and specifically set up the claim that the full faith and credit due, under the Constitution, to the judicial proceedings of the state of New Jersey, forbade the assessment of the tax. These requests were entertained and the claim denied by the surrogate and an exception taken. Upon the record thus made an appeal was taken, and in the disposition of the appeal the Federal question was necessarily passed upon