Court Opinion

ID: 9427295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:20:20.919741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:05.979673
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brennan,
concurring.
I agree with Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Powell that “in light of Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974), this Court’s decision in Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley, 302 U. S. 292 (1937), no longer can be regarded as a bar against the use of federal interpleader by estates threatened with double death taxation because of possible inconsistent adjudications of domicile.” Post, at 615.
I am not so sure as they that Texas v. Florida, 306 U. S. 398 (1939), was wrongly decided., But, whatever the case, I would still deny California’s motion to file a bill of complaint at this time. If we have jurisdiction at all, that jurisdiction certainly does not attach until it can be shown that two States may possibly be able to obtain conflicting adjudications of domicile. That showing has not been made at this time in this case, since it may well be possible for the Hughes estate to *602obtain, a judgment under the Federal Interpleader Statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1335, from a United States district court, which would be binding on both California and Texas. In this event, the precondition for our original jurisdiction would be lacking. Accordingly, I would deny California's motion, at least until such time as it is shown that such a statutory inter-pleader action cannot or will not be brought.