Document: 339 U.S. 87 70 S.Ct. 503 94 L.Ed. 675 UNITED STATESv.BURNISON et al. STATES v. GAYETTY Nos. 171, 188. Argued Dec. 13, 1949. Decided March 1950. Mr. Melvin Richter, Washington, D.C., for appellant. J. Harold Decker, Los Angeles, Cal., Gayetty and others. Justice REED delivered the opinion of Court. 1 These appeals involve power California Supreme Court to declare invalid testamentary dispositions United States by two residents. The bequest in No. 171 included only personal property; 188 was designated receive both real property bonds. situs all is assumed be California. After appropriate procedural steps, held void these gifts directed that they distributed statutory heirs each decedent.1 cases were consolidated argument below will considered here one opinion. 2 court construed § 27 Probate Code2 prevent a domiciliary from making an unrestricted gift States, although such may made California, its counties municipal corporations.3 arrived at this interpretation despite contention it would raise serious constitutional questions. construction Code is, course, binding on us. It leaves us, however, with federal questions urged avoid. 3 In makes contentions. urges Code, as interpreted, violates Supremacy Clause Constitution, art. 6, cl. 2, infringes upon 'inherent sovereign power' gifts. Alternatively argues effects unconstitutional discrimination against National Government, since Californian but not States. 4 We have no doubt receipt gifts, nontestamentary, within ambit powers. Uninterrupted usage foundation Government has sanctioned it. first question here, therefore, whether reaches so far forbid state deny testator right his 5 To answer affirmatively require us overrule Fox, 315, 24 192, decided 1876 Term unanimous frequently cited approval. A devise New York realty had been Appeals4 under statute declared land could devised natural persons corporations expressly authorized take devise. Although specifically precludes state's interference point necessarily involved States' prohibition violated essential attribute national sovereignty—the acquire methods known law. affirming, control devises State, therefore person must 'devise lands State limitations or he cannot them all.'5 6 asking Fox case, contends accept bars stopping stream revenue source. every activity represents exercise governmental power,6 through power. Since interpose 'an obstacle effective operation power',7 interfere receive. This fails recognize acts give As legal concept transfer looked single transaction separated into series steps. approach chosen determine consequences.8 Where powers flow distinctly different sources do receive, we think validity step treated separately. 7 semblance claim wills probated case long line which consistently part residue sovereignty retained states, insured Tenth Amendment,9 manner domiciliary's who beneficiaries.10 anomalous hold that, because amorphous doctrine sovereignty, law reached importent restrictions designation beneficiaries 8 leads conclusion obstruction whatever put way will. Thus rights whom incompetent, witnessed attested according laws state. complete exclusion surviving spouse, notwithstanding 9 Perkins, 163 625, 16 1073, 41 287, clear obstacles states passage There Appeals upheld application inheritance tax personalty bequeathed there where capacity, free taxes activity,11 Court, said: 10 'Certainly, if true disposition purely statutory, contribution public treasury before shall effect. * 11 'We follows act open objection attempt imposed legacy hands government. becomes after suffered diminution amount tax, condition legislature assents it.'12 12 and, find distinction between personalty. Within broad limits, say what devisable given. assume over absolute,13 nothing prohibits preventing willing Federal Government.14 13 alternative discriminates violation Constitution. even provided body beneficiary will, when less advantageously than Apparently capacity analogized sue cause action court. Reliance placed enforced courts 'ordinary jurisdiction prescribed local occasion.'15 Thus, appellant, discriminate availability judicial relief created federally rights, more can wills. 14 When refuses hear pleas based while takes cognizance those law, are state.16 Therefore allow suit refuse 'discriminate' without any reason classification.17 But though called 'right' 'power,' 'law state.' shown earlier discussion, magically transformed something enforced. upholding point. 15 sense, being differently differences distinctions treatment claimed discriminatory Equal Protection Privileges Immunities Clauses Fourteenth Amendment. distinctions, applied clearly protected Amendment, themselves unconstitutional. variations arbitrary reasonable basis occurs. decisions molded concept.18 should make somewhat dubious assumption equal protection violation. California's decision permit itself subordinate municipalities unlimited domiciliaries permissible distinction. justified close relationship residents their property.19 properly prefer way, just always preferred escheat. Affirmed. 17 BLACK dissents. 18 DOUGLAS took consideration case. re Estate Burnison, 33 Cal.2d 638, 204 P.2d 330; Sanborn, 647, 335. 27: 'Who state, counties, corporations, capable taking property, unincorporated religious, benevolent fraternal societies associations lodges branches thereof, formed scientific, literary, solely educational hospital sanatorium purposes, primarily preservation forests scenery, maintain libraries, museums art galleries, similar purposes. No other corporation unless statute.' One judge dissented authority Hendrix, 77 Cal.App.2d 651—653, 176 398, 400—402. Hendrix Veterans' Administration aid, comfort assistance disabled veterans. District Appeal, page 651, 400, really corporation, agency, beneficiary, valid. present language unnecessary refused extend now consideration. thought good charitable purposes legally constituted institution. 'without qualification administration purpose,' 646, 335, did come classifications 27. Matter Will 52 N.Y. 530, Am.Rep. 751. 321, 192. Graves People ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 466, 477, 59 595, 596, 83 927, 120 A.L.R. 1466; Pittman Home Owners' Loan Corp., 308 21, 32, 60 15, 17, 84 11, 124 1263; Land Bank St. Paul Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 95, 102, 62 1, 5, 86 65. Belmont, 301 324, 331, 332, 57 758, 761, 81 1134. Gregory Helvering, 293 465, 55 266, 79 97 1355. Sprague, 282 716, 733, 51 220, 222, 75 640, 71 1381; Darby, 312 100, 123, 657, 61 451, 461, 85 609, 132 1430. Mager Grima, How. 490, 493—494, 1168; 192; 627, 628, 1074, 287; Plummer Coler, 178 115, 137, 20 829, 837, 44 998; Maxwell Bugbee, 250 525, 536, 40 63 1124; Lyeth Hoey, 305 188, 193, 155, 158, 119, 119 410; Irving Trust Co. Day, 556, 562, 401, 1734, 137 1093; Demorest City Farmers 321 36, 48, 64 384, 391, 88 526. Mayo 319 441, 1137, 1504, 147 761. 630, 1075, 287. Clark Allen, 331 503, 67 1431, 91 1633, 170 953. Cf. Oyama 332 633, 68 269, 92 249. pointed out our determination does affect purchase eminent domain face prohibitory Kohl 367, 23 449. An declaration requisition disposal 'just compensation.' transfers. Its suffer. Second Employers' Liability Cases, (Mondou York, N.H. & H.R. Co.), 223 56, 32 169, 177, 56 327, 38 L.R.A., N.S., 44; Douglas 279 377, 49 355, 73 747; McKnett Louis S.F.R. 292 230, 54 690, 78 1227. Claflin Houseman, 93 130, 136, 833; supra, 57, 178. 234, 692; cf. supra. E.g., County Denver 229 1101; Rast Van Deman Lewis 240 342, 36 370, 679, L.R.A. 1917A, 421, Ann.Cas.1917B, 455; La Tourette McMaster, 248 39 160, 362; Rapid Transit Corp. 30 573, 58 721, 82 1024; Queenside Hills Realty Saxl, 328 80, 66 850, 90 1096. 19 Board Education Kentucky Annual Conference Methodist Episcopal Church Illinois, 203 553, 314, Ann.Cas. 157; Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Moore, 333 541, 551, 682, 688, 863.

Category: 9