Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/207/43/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:03:46+00:00

Document:
Where judicial proceedings in one state are relied upon as a defense to an assessment by the authorities of another state, a right under the Constitution of the United States is specially set up and claimed, though it was not in terms stated to be such a right.
An adjudication by the probate court that a testator was a resident of the state, though essential to the assumption of jurisdiction to grant letters testamentary, is not necessarily conclusive on the question of domicil, nor even evidence of it in a collateral proceeding, and, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, is not binding upon the courts of another state.
In respect to the settlement of successions to property on death, the states are sovereign, and may give to their courts the authority to determine finally as against all the world all questions which arise therein, subject to applicable constitutional limitations.
Where the decree of the probate court is final and bars all persons having claims against the estate, the courts of another state must, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, give similar force and effect to such a decree, when rendered by a court having jurisdiction to probate the will and administer the estate, and held that such a final decree in New Jersey was a bar in the courts of another state against the taxing authorities of the latter state attempting to enforce a claim for inheritance tax on the ground that the testator was at the time of his death domiciled therein.
the courts of New Jersey, where the will was probated. In the course of the administration, all the personal property, after paying debts, taxes, and charges of administration, was distributed by the executors to the beneficiaries under the will. A reversal of the judgment of the surrogates' court is sought for the reason that it did not give full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of the State of New Jersey, as required by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
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 during 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 Jersey. 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.
"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."
"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 twenty-fifth 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 twentieth 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."
"(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."
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."
"(20) To the refusal of the said surrogate to find, as a conclusion of law, that, 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."
"(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."
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 Telegraph Co. v. Purdy, 162 U. S. 329; Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 175; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 15, and see the remark of the CHIEF JUSTICE in Mutual Life Insurance Company v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, 188 U. S. 311. 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 by the highest court of the state, whose decision therefore we may reexamine.
findings of fact, although bound to admit the title or status which the judgment establishes."
We think that this quotation expresses the correct rule and that it is sustained by the decisions of this Court. Applying it here, it follows that the full faith and credit due to the proceedings of the New Jersey court do not require that the courts of New York shall be bound by its adjudication on the question of domicil. On the contrary, it is open to the courts of any state, in the trial of a collateral issue, to determine, upon the evidence produced, the true domicil of the deceased.
"Said executors accounted as such in the Orphans' Court of said Morris County, New Jersey, which court had jurisdiction under the laws of New Jersey to entertain such accounting and to direct final distribution of the estate of said testator thereon, and such proceedings were thereupon had that, on June 20, 1901, a decree was made in said orphans' court by the judge presiding therein, finally settling and allowing the accounts of said executors, and directing the distribution of the balance of the estate of said Albert Tilt remaining in the hands of said executors according to the terms of said will. Thereupon and prior to August, 1901, such distribution was made by said executors pursuant to the terms of said will, in conformity with the direction of said decree, and thereafter there remained in the hands of said executors no money or personal property whatsoever of the estate of said Albert Tilt."
transfer tax by the State of New York, by whose laws the tax thus assessed is made a lien on the property transferred and a personal obligation of the transferee and the executors (Laws of 1896, c. 908, § 222), give the full faith and credit to which these judicial proceedings are entitled? The answer to this question depends upon the nature of the proceedings and their effect upon the rights of those persons who were not parties or privies to them. If they are binding upon such persons, the State of New York may not levy a tax upon property which has been transferred free from the burden, and impose a personal liability on the executors, who have been declared forever exempt from all demands against the estate. The enforcement of the claim for such a tax against the property, against the distributees of the property, and against those who have distributed it, under the direction of the court, and with its assurance that no claims against them shall longer exist, is plainly inconsistent with the judicial proceedings of which the property has been administered. Is, then, the nature of the proceedings such that they are binding not only upon those who were parties or privies to them, but upon all others as well?
"The world must move on and those who claim an interest in persons and things must be charged with knowledge of their status and condition and of the vicissitudes to which they are subject. This is the foundation of all judicial proceedings in rem."
It is therefore within the power of the sovereign to give to its courts the authority, while settling the succession of estates in their possession, through their officers, the executors or administrators, to determine finally, as against the world, all questions which arise therein. Grignon v. Astor, 2 How. 319; Beauregard v. New Orleans, 18 How. 497; Foulke v. Zimmerman, 14 Wall. 113; Board of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521; Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 439; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608; Goodrich v. Ferris, 145 F. 844; Loring v. Steineman, 1 Met. 204; Kellogg v. Johnson, 38 Conn. 269; State v. Blake, 69 Conn. 64; Exton v. Zule, 14 N.J.Eq. 501; Search v. Search, 27 N.J.Eq. 137; Harlow v. Harlow, 65 Me. 448; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29.
In respect to the settlement of the successions to property on death the states of the Union are sovereign and may give to their judicial proceedings such conclusive effect, subject to the requirements of due process of law and to any other constitutional limitation which may be applicable.
But though a state may attach to the judicial proceedings of the courts through which the devolution of the estates of deceased persons is accomplished, the conclusive effect which has been described, it may not choose to do so, or may choose to do so only in respect of part of the adjudications made in the course of the settlement of the succession. It may, for instance, choose to regard the probate of a will or the grant of letters of administration as conclusive on all, and, on the other hand, to regard an order of distribution as open to attack in a collateral proceeding by those who were not parties to it. The extent to which such proceedings shall be held conclusive is a matter to be determined by each state according to its own views of public policy. The variation in practice in the different states is considerable and no good purpose would be served by considering them. It is enough to instance that in the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts, according to the cases just cited, a decree of distribution is binding upon all, while in the State of New York it appears not to be binding on one who was not a party to it. In re Killan, 172 N.Y. 547.
which has been finally distributed to those who were entitled to it under the will, and second in fixing a personal responsibility for the tax upon the executors who had been conclusively exonerated from such a liability.
Up to this point, it has been assumed that the New Jersey court had jurisdiction to probate the will and administer the estate, and what has been said upon the effect of the judicial proceedings has been based upon that assumption. When, however, full faith and credit is demanded for a judgment in the courts of other states, an inquiry into the jurisdiction is always permitted, and if it be shown that the proceedings relied upon were without the jurisdiction of the court, they need not be respected. Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457; Thormann v. Frame, 176 U. S. 350, and cases cited.
the surrogate's court of the county of Morris, State of New Jersey, and that letters testamentary were issued by said surrogate court."
The specific legacies and the disposition of the residue of the estate were then stated. The surrogate, in assessing the taxes, assessed them specifically on the beneficiaries, giving their respective names and the values of the property they respectively took under the will. Two life estates and several remainders, created by the will, were valued appropriately and the taxes assessed accordingly. All this is utterly inconsistent with an attack upon the jurisdiction, and we need not consider whether it could have been made with success.
It is quite obvious that what was done here was the assessment by one State of taxes upon transfers of personal property, taking effect under the laws of another state, entirely regardless of the situs of the property transferred. This suggests grave constitutional questions, which we cannot consider because they were not properly and seasonably raised in the court below.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 222
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.