BALDWIN
v.
MARYLAND
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Baldwin v. Maryland involved a dispute between a ward's estate and the State of Maryland over the state's right to collect taxes on the ward's property for the years 1893, 1894, and 1895. The Supreme Court affirmed the Maryland Court of Appeals' judgment in favor of the state, holding that the prior decision settling the tax dispute for 1893 and 1894 constituted res judicata and governed the identical tax question for 1895.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Beewee,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The controversy in the case reported in 85 Maryland, 145, was one between the estate of the ward and the State of Maryland. In that case the right of the State to compel a payment by the estate of the ward of taxes levied thereon for the years 1893 and 1894 was settled. The personality of the litigants, the form of the action, do not disturb the substantial fact that the controversy was between the estate of the ward and the State of Maryland, and that that controversy was determined in favor of the State. This court declining to disturb the final judgment of the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, that controversy is settled and beyond further litigation. The matter has become res judicata between the estate and the State. There is no pretence that the taxes of 1895 stand in any other condition as to matter of fact than the taxes of 1893 and 1894, which were in terms included within the litigation settled by the decision referred to. The ruling therefore, as to the taxes for 1895 comes within the force of that decision, and is determined by the conclusion in respect to the taxes of 1893 and 1894. Johnson Co. v. Wharton, 152 U. S. 252; Last Chance Mining Co. v. Tyler Mining Co., 157 U. S. 683; New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 U. S. 371.
The controversy, therefore, between the State of Maryland and the estate of the ward having been finally settled in favor of the State, and the only Federal question presented in this case being that already determined as to the right of the State to enforce a tax upon the property of the ward, it is unnecessary to consider the purely local question as to whether a judgment binding the estate binds also the sureties on the guardian’s bond. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590; Myrick v. Thompson, 99 U. S. 291, 297; Swope v. Leffingwell, 105 U. S. 3.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Peckham dissented.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bartels v. State, 410 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
-
Tait v. W. Md. Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1933)…concluded in a suit for one year’s tax as to the right or question adjudicated by a former judgment respecting the tax of an earlier year. New Orleans v. Citizens’ Bank, 167 U.S. 371; Third National Bank v. Stone, 174 U.S. 432; Baldwin v. Maryland, 179 U.S. 220; Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U.S. 499. Compare United States v. Stone & Downer Co., 274 U.S. 225, 230-231. The public policy upon which the rule is founded has been said to apply with equal force to the sovereign’s demand and the claims of privat…
-
Covington v. First Nat'l Bank of Covington, 198 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1905)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590 (U.S. 1875)
- New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1897)
- Last Chance Mining Co. v. Tyler Mining Co., 157 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1895)
- Swope v. Leffingwell, 105 U.S. 3 (U.S. 1881)
- Johnson Co. v. Wharton, 152 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1894)
- Myrick v. Thompson, 99 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1878)
- Durrant v. Hale, 168 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1897)