« PreviousContinue »
by the highest court of the state, whose de-, as an adjudication of the facts upon which cision, therefore, we may re-examine. it is grounded. On the contrary, those judg.
That re-examination, however, must be ments, such as sentences of prize courts, to confined to the single question whether, by which the greatest effect has been given in the assessment of the tax, full faith and collateral proceedings, are said to be conclu. credit has been denied to the judicial pro sive evidence of the facts upon which they ceedings of the state of New Jersey, in proceed only against parties who were en. violation of article 4, § 1, of the Constitu- titled to be heard before they were rendered. tion. In the consideration of this question,
We may lay on one side, then, any the first inquiry which presents itself is argument based on the misleading expres. whether the adjudication of the New Jersey sion that all the world are parties to a procourt, that Tilt was, at the time of his ceeding in rem. This does not mean that all death, a resident of New Jersey, was conclu- the world are entitled to be heard; and, as sive upon the state of New York, a stran- strangers in interest are not entitled to be ger to the proceedings. If it was, that is heard, there is no reason why they should be the end of the case; because then New bound by the findings of fact, although* York could not take the first step neces-bound to admit the title or status which sary to bring the estate within the provision the judgment establishes.” We think that of the tax law of that state. But, upon this quotation expresses the correct rule and principle and authority, that adjudication, that it is sustained by the decisions of though essential to the assumption of juris. this court. Applying it here, it follows that diction to grant letters testamentary, was the full faith and credit due to the proceedneither conclusive on the question of domi- | ings of the New Jersey court do not require cil, nor even evidence of it in a collateral that the courts of New York shall be bound proceeding. Thormann v. Frame, 176 U. S. by its adjudication on the question of dom350, 44 L. ed. 500, 20 Sup. .Ct. Rep. 446; icil. On the contrary, it is open to the Overby v. Gordon, 177 U. S. 214, 44 L. ed. courts of any state, in the trial of a collat741, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603; Da v. eral issue, to determine, upon the evidence Richardson, 176 Mass. 77, 57 N. E. 224, produced, the true domicil of the deceased. and see Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, But assuming that the New York court 91 U. S. 238, 23 L. ed. 314; De Mora v. had the right to determine, and determined Concha, L. R. 29 Ch. Div. 268, Affirmed in rightly, the domicil of the deceased, what L. R. 11 App. Cas. 541; Brigham v. Fayer. then? The grievance here is not the findweather, 140 Mass. 411, 5 N. E. 265. The ing that Mr. Tilt died a resident of New difference in the effect of a judgment on the York. It is the assessment, based upon res before the court and of the adjudication that finding, of a transfer tax upon the of the facts on which the judgment is based legacies contained in his will. The real is pointed out by Mr. Justice Holmes in question in the case is whether the assessthe last case.
In an or on holding that ment of that tax by the state of New York & decree of a probate court admitting a is consistent with the full faith and credit will to probate was not, on an issue be required by the Constitution to be given tween parties, one of whom was not a party to the judicial proceedings of another state. to the probate proceedings, competent evi. After the will had been allowed and letters dence of the testator's mental capacity, he testamentary had been issued by the New said: "A judgment in rem is an act of the Jersey surrogate, the executors named in sovereign power; and, as such, its effects the will took possession of all the personal cannot be disputed; at least, within the property of the testator (the real property jurisdiction. If a competent court declares not being concerned in this litigation) and & vessel forfeited, or orders it sold free of began to administer it in accordance with all claims, or divorces a couple, or estab- the terms of the will and under the direction lishes a will, . a paramount title is of the court. That property, appraised at passed, the couple is divorced, the will is about $1,000,000, consisted of bank deposits established as against all the world, whether almost entirely in New Jersey banks, life parties or not, because the sovereign has insurance policies, a few small mortgages, said that it shall be so.
But the notes, and accounts receivable, furniture, same is true when the judgment is that horses, and carriages, and (constituting moro A recover a debt of B. The public force is than eight tenths of the whole of the perpledged to collect the debt from B, and no sonal estate) stock in New Jersey corporaone within the jurisdiction can oppose it. tions. A limit of time was fixed for the And it does not follow in the former case presentation of claims against the estate, any more than in the latter, nor is it true, at the expiration of which it was decreed that the judgment, because conclusive on all that all creditors who had neglected to the world in what we may call its legisla- bring in their demands should be barred tive effect, is equally conclusive upon all from any action thereon against the execu
tors. What was then done appears in an sons who were not parties or privies to affidavit of a witness, which was agreed by them. If they are binding upon such percounsel in the hearing before the New York sons, the state of New York may not levy surrogate to show the facts. The affidavit a tax upon property which has been transis in part as follows: "Said executors ac- ferred free from the burden, and impose counted as such in the orphans' court of a personal liability on the executors, who said Morris county, New Jersey, which court have been declared forever exempt from all had jurisdiction under the laws of New demands against the estate. The enforce Jersey to entertain such accounting and to ment of the claim for such a tax against the direct final distribution of the estate of property, against the distributees of the said testator thereon, and such proceedings property, and against those who have diswere thereupon had that on June 20, 1901, tributed it, under the direction of the court, a decree was made in said orphans' court and with its assurance that no claims by the judge presiding therein, finally set against them shall longer exist, is plainly intling and allowing the accounts of said ex consistent with the judicial proceedings of ecutors, and directing the distribution of which the property has been administered. the balance of the estate of said Albert Is, then, the nature of the proceedings such Tilt remaining in the hands of said executors that they are binding not only upon those according to the terms of said will. There who were parties or privies to them, but upon and prior to August, 1901, such dis- upon all others as well? tribution was made by said executors pur- When the owners of property die, that suant to the terms of said will, in con- property, under the conditions and restricformity with the direction of said decree, tions of the law applicable, is transmitted to and thereafter there remained in the hands their successors named by their wills or by of said executors no money or personal the laws regulating inheritance in cases of property whatsoever of the estate of said intestacy. For a suitable time it is essenAlbert Tilt."
tial that the property should remain under Thus, executors appointed by a court have the control of the state, until all just ing, upon the face of the record, authority charges against it can be discovered and to make the appointment, had accounted for paid, and those entitled to it as new owners the property which had come into their can be ascertained. It is in the public interhands to the court having jurisdiction, un- est that the property should come under der the laws of the state, to pass on the the control of the new owners, after such accounts, and, without knowledge of any delays only as will afford opportunity for claim by the state of New York, had, by investigation and hearing to guard against the direction of the court, acting within its mistake, injustice, or fraud. It is the duty jurisdiction, paid out the whole estate to of the sovereign to provide a tribunal, under those who were entitled to it by the will. whose direction the just demands against All that was done by the executors, and all the estate may be determined and paid, that was received by the beneficiaries in the succession decreed, and the estate de the disposition of the estate, was done and volved to those who are found to be ena received by orders of court, duly entered titled to it. Sometimes this duty is * per * in the course of judicial proceedings. For formed by conferring jurisdiction upon a the purpose of enabling the executors to single court and sometimes by dividing the distribute the estate with safety to them jurisdiction among two or three courts. The selves, in accordance with a common prac- courts may be termed ecclesiastical, probate, tice in the settlement of the estate of de orphans', surrogate, or equity courts. The ceased persons, and under authority con- jurisdiction may be exercised exclusively in ferred by the laws of the state, the court, one, or divided among two or more, as the prior to the distribution, had decreed that sovereign shall determine. But somewhere all those who had neglected to bring in their the power must exist to decide finally, as claims should be “forever barred from their against the world, all questions which arise action therefor against the executors of the in the settlement of the succession. Mis.
deceased.” Upon these facts, does the assess takes may occur and sometimes do occur, • ment of this *transfer tax by the state of but it is better that they should be en
New York, by whose laws the tax thus as- dured than that, in a vain search for insessed is made a lien on the property trans-fallibility, questions shall remain open inferred and a personal obligation of the definitely. As was said by Mr. Justice transferee and the executors (Laws of 1896, Bradley, speaking on this subject in Broderchap. 908, § 222), give the full faith and ick’s Will (Kieley v. McGlynn) 21 Wall. credit to which these judicial proceedings 503, p. 519, 22 L. ed. 599, p. 605: “The world are entitled? The answer to this question must move on and those who claim an independs upon the nature of the proceedings terest in persons and things must be charged and their effect upon the rights of those per-' with knowledge of their status and condi
tion and of the vicissitudes to which they faith and credit aust be given to these judiare subject. This is the foundation of all cial proceedings of New Jersey, we must first judicial proceedings in rem.” It is there ascertain what effect that state attaches to fore within the power of the sovereign them. The statute enacted to carry into to give to its courts the authority, while effect the constitutional provision provided settling the succession of estates in their that they should have, in any court within possession, through their officers, the ex- the United States, such faith and credit “as ecutors or administrators, to determine they have by law or usage in the courts of finally, as against the world, all ques. the state from which they are taken.” Act tions which arise therein. Grignon v. As. May 26, 1790 [1 Stat. at L. 122, chap. 11), tor, 2 How. 319, 11 L. ed. 283, per Bald- now $ 905, Rev. Stat. (U. S. Comp. Stat. win, J., p. 338; Beauregard v. New Orleans, 1901, p. 677). They can have no greater or 18 How. 497, 15 L, ed. 469; Foulke v. Zim-less or other effect in other courts than in merman, 14 Wall. 113, 20 L. ed. 785; Board those of their own state. Cheever v. Wilson, of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 9 Wall. 108, 19 L. ed. 604; Board of Public Wall. 521, 21 L. ed. 687; Broderick's Will Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521, (Kieley v. McGlynn) 21 Wall. 503, 22 L. ed. 21 L. ed. 687; Robertson v. Pickrell, 109 699; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 439, 34 L. U. S. 608, 27 L. ed. 1049, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 407 ; ed. 1054, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 369; Byers v. Mc- Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. Auley, 149 U. S. 608, 37 L. ed. 867, 13 Sup. Ct. 640, 44 L. ed. 619, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 506. Rep. 906; Goodrich v. Ferris, 145 Fed. 844; In ascertaining, on a writ of error to a state Loring v. Steineman, 1 Met. 204; Kellogg v. court, what credit is given to these judicial Johnson, 38 Conn. 269; State v. Blake, 69 proceedings by the laws and usages of the Conn. 64, 36 Atl. 1019; Exton v. Zule, 14 N. state of New Jersey, we are limited to the J. Eq. 501; Search v. Search, 27 N. J. Eq. evidence on that subject before the court 137; Harlow v. Harlow, 65 Me. 448; Ladd whose judgment we are reviewing. Hanley v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn, 29, 69 L.R.A. 785, 64 v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 1, 29 L. ed. 535, 600 N. W. 99.
Sup. Ct. Rep. 242;*Chicago & A. R. Co. v.* In respect to the settlement of the suc Wiggins Ferry Co. 119 U. S. 622, 30 L. ed. cessions to property on death the states of 522, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 398. The only evidence the Union are sovereign and may give to upon this point was in an affidavit of an their judicial proceedings such conclusive ef. attorney and counselor at law of that state. fect, subject to the requirements of due proc. The evidence is meagre and not entirely satess of law and to any other constitutional | isfactory and conclusive. It was, however, limitation which may be applicable.
uncontradicted. It tended to show that the *But though a state may attach to the ju- surrogate had jurisdiction to probate the dicial proceedings of the courts through will and issue letters testamentary, and that which the devolution of the estates of de- the probate and issue of letters could not be ceased persons is accomplished, the con- impeached in a collateral proceeding; that clusive effect which has been described, it the surrogate had “under the laws of New may not choose to do so, or may choose to Jersey full and competent jurisdiction" to do so only in respect of part of the adjudica- make the order limiting the time for credtions made in the course of the settlement itors of the estate to bring in their demands, of the succession. It may, for instance, and the subsequent order that all who had choose to regard the probate of a will or the neglected to do so "should be forever barred grant of letters of administration as con from their action therefor against the execclusive on all, and, on the other hand, to re- utors of said deceased;" that the acts of the gard an order of distribution as open to at- surrogate cannot be impeached collaterally, tack in a collateral proceeding by those who and that the orphans' court had jurisdiction were not parties to it. The extent to which under the laws of New Jersey “to direct such proceedings shall be held conclusive is a final distribution of the estate of said testamatter to be determined by each state actor," and it cited four cases from the New cording to its own views of public policy. Jersey reports (Re Coursen, 4 N. J. Eq. 408; The variation in practice in the different Quidort v. Pergeaux, 18 N. J. Eq. 472; Ryno states is considerable and no good purpose v. Ryno, 27 N. J. Eq. 522; and Re Straub, 49 would be served by considering them. It is N. J. Eq. 264, 24 Atl. 569). In relying upon enough to instance that in the states of Con- evidence of this kind we are quite aware Becticut and Massachusetts, according to the that we may not ascertain with the preci. cases just cited, a decree of distribution is sion which might be desired the credit which binding upon all, while in the state of New the state of New Jersey attaches to these York it appears not to be binding on one judicial proceedings. But it is all that we who was not a party to it. Re Killan, 172 can have. We think that we may safely in. N. Y. 547, 63 L.R.A. 95, 65 N. E. 561. fer from it that the order of the surrogato
When, therefore, we come to consider what barring all creditors who had failed to bring
in the demand from any further claim praiser's report it is said that the deceased against the executors was binding upon all. had left a will “which was duly admitted to It was an order which he had “full and probate in the surrogate's court of the coun: competent authority to make,” and it was ty of Morris, state of New Jersey, and that one of the acts which could not be impeached letters testamentary were issued by said sur. collaterally. We think, also, that the juris.rogate court.” The specific legacies and the diction to direct a final distribution means disposition of the residue of the estate were a distribution which shall be final, so far, at then stated. The surrogate, in assessing the least, as any person having a demand against taxes, assessed them specifically on the benethe estate is concerned. If we have dis. ficiaries, giving their respective names and cerned correctly the effect which New Jer the values of the property they respectively Bey gives to these judicial proceedings, it is took under the will. Two life estates and obvious that the assessment of this tax de- several remainders, created by the will, were nies them full faith and credit in two re valued appropriately and the taxes assessed spects: First, in seeking a part of an estate accordingly. All this is utterly inconsistent which has been finally distributed to those with an attack upon the jurisdiction, and who were entitled to it under the will; and, we need not consider whether it could have second, in fixing a personal responsibility been made with success. for the tax upon the executors who had been It is quite obvious that what was done conclusively exonerated from such a liability. here was the assessment by one state of tax
Up to this point it has been assumed that es upon transfers of personal property, takthe New Jersey court had jurisdiction to ing effect under the laws of another state, probate the will and administer the estate, entirely regardless of the situs of the prop. and what has been said upon the effect of erty transferred. This suggests grave conthe judicial proceedings has been based upon stitutional questions, which we cannot con. that assumption. When, however, full faith sider because they were not properly and and credit is demanded for a judgment in seasonably raised in the court below. the courts of other states, an inquiry into For the foregoing reasons we think that the jurisdiction is always permitted, and if the judgment below denied to the New Jer. it be shown that the proceedings relied upon sey proceedings the full faith and credit to were without the jurisdiction of the court, which they were entitled by the Constituthey need not be respected. Thompson v. tion and laws of the United States, and acWhitman, 18 Wall. 457, 21 L. ed. 897; cordingly it is reversed. Thormann v. Frame, 176 U. S. 350, 44 L. ed.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissents. 500, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 446, and cases cited.
The defendant in error, acting upon this well-settled rule, might have attacked the
(207 U. S. 20) jurisdiction of the New Jersey courts, and
SAMUEL B. RAYMOND, County Treasurer thus brought forward for consideration many
of Cook County, Illinois, and ex officio important questions which, in the view we
County Collector of Cook County, Illinois; take of the case, need not even be stated.
John J. Hanberg, His Successor as Such But there was no attempt, except in argu County Treasurer and County Collector, ment here, to deny the right of the New
et al. Appts., Jersey court to act upon the paper writing purporting to dispose of the estate of Tilt, CHICAGO UNION TRACTION COMPANY.
! and, by admitting it to probate, to convert
Courts - jurisdiction of circuit court it into an operative will. It is true that, as
Federal question. a basis of assessing transfer taxes, it was
1. The claim that the action of a stato proved that Tilt was a resident of New York board of equalization in making an assessat the time of his death,-a fact which ment for a tax pursuant to the command would be relevant to the question of jurisdic. of a writ of mandamus was the action of tion. But that fact was not proved or used the state, and, if carried out, would violate for the purpose of invalidating the proceed. U. S. Const., 14th Amend., by taking propings taken in probating the will and admin. erty without due process of law and denying
the equal protection of the laws, constitutes istering the estate. On the contrary, the
a Federal question within the original juristaxes were based upon the provisions of the diction of a Federal circuit court. instrument, which derived all its authen. Constitutional law - due process of law ticity as a will and all its capacity to trans- l - equal protection of the laws. mit property from the judicial proceedings 2. The Illinois state board of equalization, in New Jersey. It appears conclusively from when making an assessment pursuant to the the action taken in the New York surrogate supposed command of a writ of mandamus, court that there was no attempt to declare od of reviewing its decision except by ju
represents the state,—there being no meththe New Jersey proceedings void because they dicial proceedings for relief from the assess. were taken without jurisdiction. In the ap-'ment, -and its action is therefore repug
nant to U. S. Const., 14th Amend., if it | lants from taking any further proceedings denies anyone the due process of law or the towards the collection of certain taxes ag. equal protection of the laws protected by sessed against the appellee upon an assess. that Amendment against impairment by the ment alleged to be in violation of the 14th state.
Amendment to the Constitution of the UnitConstitutional law - equal protection of the laws - due process of law.
ed States, and which, if enforced, would re3. Assessing the franchises and other sult in the taking of appellee's property property of certain corporations at a differ- without due process of law, and in denying ent rate and by a different method from that to it the equal protection of the laws. employed for other corporations of the same * The case was brought in the circuit court** class for the same year, which results in of the United States at Chicago, and an enormous disparity and discrimination, de opinion was delivered by that court at the nies the due process of law and equal pro- time of the judgment for appellee. tection of the laws protected by U. S. Const., Fed. 557. An earlier opinion upon a previ.
114 14th Amend., against impairment by a state.
ous motion in certain traction company Injunction against illegal taxation.
4. Equity has jurisdiction, where no rem cases, relating to one phase of the matter edy at law exists, upon payment of a tax in controversy, which was pending at the fairly and equitably due, restrain the time in the southern district of Illinois, collection of the tax assessed upon a cor is to be found in 112 Fed. 607. The quesporation at a different rate and by a differ- tions arise by reason of the provisions of the ent method from that employed for other Constitution of the state of Illinois and corporations of the same class and for the certain sections of its tax statutes or revenus same year, which results in a most enormous and material discrimination against the laws. The material part of article 9, § 1, complainant corporation.
of the Constitution of Illinois, 1870, is as Injunction - against illegal taxation - follows: remedy at law.
“The general assembly shall provide such 5. The existence of an adequate remedy at revenue as may be needful by levying a tax law by an action to recover back illegal by valuation so that every person and cortaxes, which will defeat injunctive relief, poration shall pay a tax in proportion to is negatived by allegations in a bill to restrain illegal taxation that, if complainant the value of his, her, or its property,—such sues to recover back the taxes, separate suits value to be ascertained by some person or must be brought against the several taxing persons to be elected or appointed in such bodies receiving a share of the tax; that the manner as the general assembly shall diproportion of the tax which goes to the rect, and not otherwise; but the general state cannot be recovered by any legal pro- assembly shall have power to tax ceeding; that whatever repayment can be compelled from the other taxing bodies will
insurance, telegraph, and express interests not cover the cost, including commissions or business, vendors of patents and persons deducted for the collection of the tax; that or corporations owning or using franchises payment of such tax will render complainant and privileges in such manner as it shall insolvent; and that a levy on its property from time to time direct by general law, will interfere with the street-car system op- uniform as to the class upon which it oper. erated by it, to the injury of the public.
ates.” Const. 1870, art. 9, § 1. (No. 115.]
The following are the statutes in ques
tion: Argued April 8, 9, 1907. Decided October "Real property shall be valued as follows: 21, 1907.
First, each tract or lot of real property
shall be valued at its fair cash value, estiA
PPEAL from the Circuit Court of the mated at the price it would bring at a
United States for the Northern Dis. fair voluntary sale." Hurd's Rev. Stat. trict of Illinois to review a judgment en 1899, chap. 120, 14. joining the collection of a tax on the prop
“Personal property shall be valued as erty of a corporation, which tax is asserted follows: First, all personal property, except to violate the Federal Constitution, Af as herein otherwise directed, shall be valued firmed.
at its fair cash value.
Fourth, the See same case below, 114 Fed. 557. capital stock of all companies or associa
tions now or hereafter created under the Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham: laws of this state, except those required
The appellants, who were defendants be to be assessed by the local assessors and low, have appealed from the judgment of hereinafter provided, shall be so valued by the circuit court of the United States for the state board of equalization as to ascerthe northern district of Illinois. The case tain and determine respectively the fair is one of several argued together, the facts cash value of such capital stock, including in regard to which are substantially the the franchise, over and above the assessed :
It was brought to enjoin the appel- ' value of *the tangible property of such com- **