DANA, INDIVIDUALLY,
v.
DANA, EXECUTOR OF DANA, ET AL.

U.S. | 1919-06-02
No. 276
250 U.S. 220 Supreme Court of the United States (1919) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 63 L. Ed. 947 · 39 S. Ct. 449 · SCDB 1918-069 · 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1736
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

A Massachusetts taxpayer challenged a state succession tax imposed on interests in trusts and companies, including real estate located outside Massachusetts, arguing the tax violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by taxing property situated beyond the state's borders. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction, holding that because the case did not draw into question the validity of a state statute or authority as repugnant to the federal Constitution, it could only be reviewed by writ of certiorari under the 1916 amendment to the Judicial Code, not by writ of error.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me. Justice Day

Mr. Justice Day delivered the memorandum opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error seeking to review in this court a decree of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The controversy concerned the right to tax under the Massachusetts Statutes of 1909, c. 490, Part IV, § 1, as amended by Stats. 1912, c. 678, the passing of certain interests under the will of Edith L. Dana, in the Duluth and Gladstone Real Estate Trust, in thirty preferred shares, forty-five common shares of the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company and in one hundred and thirty shares of the Boston Ground Rent Trust.

The probate court held in favor of the Treasurer and Receiver General, — that all of the interests of the testatrix in the several trusts and companies named were taxable under the Massachusetts statute. The case was decided in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on June 29, 1917, and final decree entered July 23, 1917. 227 Massachusetts, 562. The ground upon which it is sought to bring the case here on writ of error rests upon the assertion that the Supreme Judicial Court erred in sustaining the succession tax because it was imposed on or on account of real estate situated outside of Massachusetts; therefore, rendering the assessment of the tax a violation of rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in that it took the property of the. plaintiff in error without due process of law.

The casé was decided, and the decree entered in the Supreme Judicial Court since the passage of the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726, amending § 237 of the Judicial Code. Since the passage of the amendment, cases brought within its éffect, of the character of this one, cannot be brought here by writ of error unless there is drawn in question the validity of a statute of or an authority exercised under the State on the ground of their being repugnant to the Federal Constitution, treaties or laws. Other cases of alleged denial of federal rights, as specified in the statute, can be reviewed in this court only upon writ of certiorari.

An examination of the record in the case and the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court, shows that neither the validity of the statute, nor the validity of any authority exercised under the State was drawn in question. The case was decided on the view which the Supreme Judicial Court entertained of the character of the property involved, and neither in the record nor in the opinion of the court does it appear that any question was raised or decided which involved the validity of the statute of the State, or of an authority exercised under the State, on the ground of their repugnancy to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States. It follows that the only right of review in this court of the decree of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was by writ of certiorari. It is only necessary to refer to our decisions construing the .amendment of September 6, 1916. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, 245 U. S. 162; Ireland v. Woods, 246 U. S. 323; Stadelman v. Miner, 246 U. S. 544; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Solum, 247 U. S. 477, 481.

The writ of. error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1921)
    …mber 6, 1916.1 Likewise, in cases involving state taxation the validity of the tax often depends upon the question whether the specific thing taxed was property within or property without the taxing State — a question which, as held in Dana v. Dana, 250 U. S. 220, and Citizens National Bank v. Durr, ante, 99, can be reviewed here only on writ of certiorari. If the rule now insisted upon should prevail, jurisdiction in such cases could be secured on writ of error by the simple device of claiming that the taxi…
  • Yazoo & Miss. Valley R.R. Co. v. City of Clarksdale, 257 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1921)
    …drawn in question in this case. What is denied here is the regularity of the marshal’s attempted exercise of his conceded authority and the validity of the resulting title. Hence, the only way of reviewing this cause is by certiorari. Dana v. Dana, 250 U. S. 220; Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, 245 U. S. 162; Avery v. Popper, 179 U. S. 305, 314. The writ of error is dismissed, the petition for certiorari is granted, and we now proceed to dispose of the case on the latter writ. The validi…
  • New Orleans Land Co. v. Brott, 263 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1923)
    …statute authorizing writs of error. United States v. Lynch, 137 U. S. 280. Cook County v. Calumet & Chicago Canal & Dock Co., 138 U. S. 635. French v. Taylor, 199 U. S. 274, 277. See Champion Lumber Co. v. Fisher, 227 U. S. 445, 451. Dana v. Dana, 250 U. S. 220. Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2 ;- 39 Stat. 726. It.follows that the New Orleans Land-Company’s writ of error must be dismissed. The cross writ taken out by the Brotts also must be dismissed. There very well may have been ground for a writ…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw