UNITED STATES
v.
FOX

U.S. | 1876-10-01
94 U.S. 315 Supreme Court of the United States (1876) Caution
Also reported at: 24 L. Ed. 192 · 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1867 · SCDB 1876-171
Cited by 117 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

The United States challenged the validity of a devise of New York real estate to the federal government under state law. The Supreme Court held that a bequest of real property to the United States is void because New York's statute of wills, which permits devises only to "persons" and "corporations," does not extend to the federal government, and state law exclusively governs the disposition and descent of real property within its borders.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Field,

Mr. Justice Field,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The sole question for our consideration in this ease is the validity of a devise to the United States of real estate situated in the State of New York. The question is to be determined by the laws of that State. It is not-pretended that the United States may not acquire and hold real property in the State, whenever such property is needed for the use of the government in the execution of any of its powers; as, for instance, when needed for arsenals, fortifications, light-houses, customhouses, court-houses, barracks, hospitals, or for any other of the many public purposes for which such property is used. And when the property cannot be acquired by voluntary arrangement with its owners, it may be taken against their will by the United States in the exercise of their power of eminent domain, upon making just compensation, — a power which can.be exercised in their own courts, and would always be resorted to, if, through caprice of individuals or the hostility of the State legislature, or other cause, harassing conditions were attached to the acquisition of the required property in any other way. Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367.

The power of the State to regulate the tenure of real property within her limits, and the modes of its acquisition and transfer, and the rules of its descent, and the extent to which a testamentary disposition of it may be exercised by its owners, is undoubted. It is an established principle of’ law, everywhere recognized, arising from the necessity of the case, that the disposition of immovable property, whether by deed, descent, or any other mode, is exclusively subject to the government within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 202. The power of the State in this respect follows from her sovereignty within her limits,- as to all matters over which jurisdiction has not been expressly or by necessary implication transferred to the Federal government. The title and modes of disposition of-real property within the State, whether inter vivos or testamentary, are not’matters placed under the control of Federal authority. Such control would be foreign to the purposes for which the Federal government was created, and would seriously embarrass the landed interests of the State.

Statutes of wills, as is justly observed by the Court of Appeals, are enabling acts, and prior to the statute of 32 Hen. VIII. there was no general power at common law to devise lands. The power was opposed to the feudal policy of holding lands inalienable without the consent of the lord. The English. Statute of Wills became a part of the law of New York upon the adoption of her Constitution in 1777; and, with some modifications in its language, remains so at this day. Every person must, therefore, devise his lands in that State within the limitations of the statute or he cannot devise them at all. His power is bounded by its conditions. That statute provides that a devise of lands may be made “ to any person capable by law of holding real estate; but no devise to a corporation shall be valid unless such corporation be expressly authorized by its charter or by statute to take by devise.”

The term “ person ” as here used applies to natural persons, and also to artificial persons, — bodies politic, deriving their existence and powers from legislation, — but cannot be so extended as to include within its meaning the Federal government. It would require an express definition to that effect to give it a sense thus extended. And the term “ corporation ” in the statute applies only to such corporations as are created under the laws of the State. It was so held by the Court of Appeals in White v. Howard, 46 N. Y. 164, 165, and its construction of the statute is conclusive upon us. A devise to the United States of real property situated in that State is, therefore, void.

Decree affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (56 total)

  • State ex rel. Henry v. Sbordy v. William M. Rowlett, 138 Fla. 330 (Fla. 1939)
    …been offered. Where the second action, between the same parties, is upon a different demand, the prior judgment operates as an estoppel only as to matters in issue, or points controverted, upon which such judgment was based. Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 195; Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 So. 867, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 577; Annotation in 88 A. L. R. 574. In Outram v. Morewood (1803), 3 East. 346, 102 Eng. Rep. 630, the Court said. “The Court very properly distinguished there between wha…
  • United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1947)
    …aid or protection; therefore, the following definitions of, and limitations upon, the jurisdiction and authority of the courts of the United States are hereby enacted.” United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941); United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 321 (1876). 75 Cong. Rec. 5473. An amendment by Representative Beck, designed to save to the United States the right to intervene by injunction in private labor disputes, was defeated. 75 Cong. Rec. 5503, 5505. 75 Cong. Rec. 5503. Ibid. Most fr…
  • Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989)
    …ed . . . the word ‘person’ may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate . . . unless the context shows that such words were intended to be used in a more limited sense.” Act of Feb. 25, 1871, §2, 16 Stat. 431. See United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 321 (1877); 1 B. Abbott, Dictionary of Terms and Phrases Used in American or English Jurisprudence 155 (1879) (“most exact expression” for “public corporation”); W. Anderson, A Dictionary of Law 127 (1893) (“most exact expression for a public corpo…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 56 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (14 total)

View all 14 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw