Case Name: ETHEL M. DORRANCE, GEORGE MORRIS DORRANCE, M. D., ARTHUR C. DORRANCE AND CAMDEN SAFE DEPOSIT AND TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF JOHN T. DORRANCE, DECEASED, PROSECUTORS, v. J. H. THAYER-MARTIN, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1935-02-08
Citations: 13 N.J. Misc. 168
Docket Number: 
Parties: ETHEL M. DORRANCE, GEORGE MORRIS DORRANCE, M. D., ARTHUR C. DORRANCE AND CAMDEN SAFE DEPOSIT AND TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF JOHN T. DORRANCE, DECEASED, PROSECUTORS, v. J. H. THAYER-MARTIN, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 168–169

Head Matter:
ETHEL M. DORRANCE, GEORGE MORRIS DORRANCE, M. D., ARTHUR C. DORRANCE AND CAMDEN SAFE DEPOSIT AND TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF JOHN T. DORRANCE, DECEASED, PROSECUTORS, v. J. H. THAYER-MARTIN, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.
Submitted October term, 1934
Decided February 8, 1935.
Before Justices Teen chard, Heher and Perskie.
For the prosecutors, John Milton (Nathan Miller and Harold Otis, of the New York bar).
For the respondent, David T. Wilentz, attorney-general; William H. Smathers, assistant attorney-general, and Duane 27. Minará.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari, in this case, brings up for review a final decree of the New Jersey Prerogative Court, dated May 11th, 1934, affirming a transfer inheritance tax assessment, made by J. H. Thayer-Martin, state tax commissioner of the State of New Jersey, in the matter of the estate of John T. Dorranee, deceased, as made on October 10th, 1932, and amounting to $12,247,333.52.
We have carefully studied and considered the voluminous records, proofs and briefs herein submitted. The opinions of Buchanan, Vice-Ordinary, in this matter when it came up before him for determination are reported in 115 N. J. Eq. 268; 170 Atl. Rep. 601, and 116 N. J. Eq. 204; 172 Atl. Rep. 503. They disclose a very careful analysis and consideration of the proofs as well as the law applicable thereto; they are comprehensive, clear, sound and correct.
We are of the firm opinion that there has been nothing further presented to this court which would merit or justify a disturbance of the results reached by the learned vice-ordinary and with which we are in thorough accord.
Accordingly the decree brought up for review is sustained and the writ of certiorari is dismissed, with costs.