BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U. S. 1 (1928)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 277 U. S. 1

U.S. Supreme Court

Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U.S. 1 (1928)

Blodgett v. Silberman

Nos.190 and 191

Argued March 12, 13, 1928

Decided April 16, 1928

277 U.S. 1


1. The a decedent's domicile may impose a succession tax on the transfer of his intangible property by will or inheritance under her laws, even though the evidences of such property be outside of the state at the time of his death, and even though the transfer be subject to taxation in another jurisdiction. Mobilia sequuntur personam. P. 277 U. S. 8.

2. The interest of a deceased partner in a limited partnership governed by c. 408, N.Y.Laws, 1919, among whose assets are buildings and land, is an interest in the surplus of assets with a right to an accounting -- a chose in action. It is intangible property subject to succession tax in the state of his domicile. P. 277 U. S. 10.

3. Bonds and certificates of indebtedness of the United States, payable to bearer and transferable from hand to hand, though having some of the qualities of physical property, are nevertheless intangible property -- choses in action -- subject to succession tax by the the deceased owner's domicile, although physically they have been in another state ever since he acquired them. @ 82 U. S. 12.

4. The domiciliary state may likewise tax the succession to stock of corporations of other states, the certificates for which have

Page 277 U. S. 2

never been within its borders, a savings deposit in another state, and life insurance collected there by the decedent's estate. P. 277 U. S. 18. 5.

5. But banknotes and coin kept by the decedent in a safe deposit box in another state are tangible property, and not subject to transfer tax by the state of his domicile. Id.

6. A testator, resident in Connecticut, died possessed of an interest in a New York partnership, stocks, bonds, and a bank account in New York, and a life insurance policy in a New York company. The will, which devised most of the property to New York charities, was probated in New York, and the estate largely settled there, including the payment of debts and legacies and the fixation and payment of the New York transfer and federal estate taxes. Held that subsequent proceedings in Connecticut by which a tax was imposed on the succession to the intangibles mentioned did not deny full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and proceedings of New York. Id.

7. The full faith and credit clause does not make judgments binding on those who were neither party nor privy to the proceedings in which they were rendered. P. 277 U. S. 19.

105 Conn.192 affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Connecticut levying a succession tax pursuant to the opinion and advice of the Supreme Court of Errors, 105 Conn.192, on the transfer of property under the will of a resident of the state. The executors sued out a writ of error from this Court upon the ground that the taxing statute, as applied, violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the full faith and credit provision of the Constitution. The Connecticut Tax Commission applied for a certiorari to so much of the judgment as denied to the state, because of the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to tax the transfer of certain securities of the United States and banknotes and coin.

Page 277 U. S. 3

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :