MOORE, TREASURER OF GRANT COUNTY, INDIANA,
v.
MITCHELL, ET AL., EXECUTORS

U.S. | 1930-02-24
No. 79
281 U.S. 18 Supreme Court of the United States (1930) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 74 L. Ed. 673 · 50 S. Ct. 175 · SCDB 1929-096 · 1930 U.S. LEXIS 733
Cited by 88 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 county treasurer from Indiana sought to recover unpaid taxes from the executors of a deceased Indiana resident's estate in federal court in New York, claiming authority under an Indiana statute authorizing county treasurers to collect delinquent taxes from persons residing outside the state. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the suit, holding that the treasurer lacked legal capacity to sue in federal court outside Indiana because his authority derived solely from Indiana law, which cannot extend beyond Indiana's borders, and federal courts have a longstanding practice of denying similar authority to state-appointed officers like executors and administrators seeking to sue in other jurisdictions.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Butler

Mr. Justice Butler delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner is the county treasurer of Grant county, Indiana. Respondents are the executors named in the will of Richard Edwards Breed, appointed by the Surrogate’s Court in the county and State of New York and there engaged in the administration of his estate. Petitioner as such treasurer brought this suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover $958,516.22 claimed as delinquent taxes. The respondents moved to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, and that petitioner had not legal capacity to sue. The court declined jurisdiction and entered a decree dismissing the complaint. 28 F. (2d) 997. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 30 F. (2d) 600.

From 1884 until his death on October 14, 1926, the testator was a resident and citizen of Grant county, Indiana . During the last 24 years of that period he owned stock of corporations and other intangible property in respect of which there had been no return, assessment or payment of taxes. After testator’s death the county auditor, acting, as it is alleged, under authority of the statutes of Indiana, ascertained the value in each year of the omitted property, assessed taxes thereon for state, county, city, and township purposes and charged the same against such property and the executors. By the statutes of Indiana (§ 14,299, Burns’ Statutes, 1926,) it is made the duty of the treasurer of each county to collect the taxes imposed therein for county, city and other purposes. By § 1, c. 54, Session Laws of 1927, county treasurers are authorized “ to institute and prosecute to final judgment and execution, all suits and proceedings necessary for the collection of delinquent taxes owing by any person residing outside of the State of Indiana or by his legal representatives ...” The recovery here sought is for Grant county, the city of Marion and the other political subdivisions therein of which the testator was a resident during the years for which such assessments were made.

The first question for-consideration is whether petitioner had authority to bring this suit.

The United States District Court in New York exercises a jurisdiction that is independent of and under a sovereignty that is different from that of Indiana. Grant v. Leach & Company, 280 U. S. 351. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 732. And, so far as concerns petitioner’s capacity to sue therein, that court is not to be distinguished from the courts of the State of New York. Hale v. Allinson, 188 U. S. 56, 68.

Petitioner claims only by virtue of his office. Indiana is powerless to give any force or effect beyond her own limits to the Act of 1927 purporting to authorize this suit or to the other statutes empowering and prescribing the duties of its officers in respect of the levy and collection of taxes. And, as Indiana laws are the sole source of petitioner’s authority, it follows that he had none in New York. Mechem, Public Offices and Officers, § 508. State v. Scott, 182 N. C. 865, 873. He is the mere arm of the State for the collection of taxes for some of its subdivisions and has no better standing to bring suits in courts outside Indiana than have executors, administrators, or chancery receivers without title, appointed under the laws and by the courts of that State. It is well understood that they are without'authority, in their official capacity, to sue as of right in the federal courts in other States. From the earliest time, federal courts in one State have declined to take jurisdiction of suits by executors and administrators appointed in another State. Dixon’s Executors v. Ramsay’s Executors, 3 Cranch 319, 323. Kerr v. Moon, 9 Wheat. 565, 571. Vaughan v. Northup, 15 Pet. 1, 5. And since the decision of this Court in Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322, it has been the practice in federal courts to limit such receivers to suits in the jurisdiction in which they are appointed. Great Western Mining Co. v. Harris, 198 U. S. 561, 578. Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U. S. 243, 257. Sterrett v. Second National Bank, 248 U. S. 73, 76. The reasons on which rests this long established practice in respect of executors, administrators and such receivers apply with full force here. We conclude that petitioner lacked legal capacity to sue.

It is not necessary to express any opinion upon the question considered below, whether a federal court in one State will enforce the revenue laws of another State.

Decree affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (24 total)

  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1964)
    …resses a policy favorable to such exchange laws. 12 N. Y. 2d 371, 190 N. E. 2d 235, cert. denied, 376 U. S. 906. See also The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66, 123; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657; Moore v. Mitchell, 30 F. 2d 600, aff'd on other grounds, 281 U. S. 18; Dicey, Conflict of Laws (Morris ed., 7th ed. 1958), 667; Wolff, Private International Law (2d ed. 1950), 525. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113 (lack of reciprocity in the foreign state renders the judgment only prima facie evidence of the justice of…
    1 / 2
  • Milwaukee Cnty. v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1935)
    …ly embarrassing to itself or its neighbors. See Moore v. Mitchell, 30 F. (2d) 600, 602, 604; Beale, Conflict of Laws, § 610.1. Whether one state must enforce the revenue laws of another remains an open question in this Court. See Moore v. Mitchell, 281 U. S. 18, 24. But we do not stop to inquire whether the considerations which have been thought to preclude the enforcement of the penal laws of one state in the courts of another are applicable to taxing statutes; or whether the mere possibility of embarrass…
    1 / 2
  • United States v. First Nat'l City Bank, 379 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1965)
    …L. R. 2d 721; Government of India v. Taylor, [1955] A. C. 491 (H. L.); Peter Buchanan Ld. & Macharg v. McVey, [1955] A. C. 516 (Eire Sup. Ct.). For enforcement of tax claims between States see Moore v. Mitchell, 30 F. 2d 600, aff’d on other grounds, 281 U. S. 18; Colorado v. Harbeck, 232 N. Y. 71, 133 N. E. 357. Contra: Oklahoma v. Rodgers, 238 Mo. App. 1115, 193 S. W. 2d 919. Tax treaties may be used to change the general international understanding. See Owens, United States Income Tax Treaties: Their Role…

Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (12 total)

View all 12 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw