Cases Argued and Decided in the Supreme Court of the United States

Ct. Rep. 648, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 135; United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 94, 63 L. ed. 493, 496, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214; Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245, 64 L. ed. 887, 11 A.L.R. 519, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550; New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 138, 9 L. ed. 648, 662; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 399, 12 L. ed. 702, 750; Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76, 19 L. ed. 101, 104; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725, 19 L. ed. 227, 237; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, 547, 19 L. ed. 482, 485, 487; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 427, 20 L. ed. 449, 451; Union P. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5, 30, 31, 21 L. ed. 787, 791, 792; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 550, 23 L. ed. 588, 590; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679, 24 L. ed. 558; | Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 560, 581, 584, 39 L. ed. 759, 812, 819, 820, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Plummer v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 44 L. ed. 998, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 275, 62 L. ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; South Covington & C. Street R. Co. v. Kentucky, 252 U. S. 399, 404, 64 L. ed. 631, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 378.

If the exaction complained of is a tax in respect of the transfer to those beneficially entitled, or an income tax, it is unconstitutional because of its gross and capricious inequalities.

Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. p. 695; Woodbridge v. Detroit, 8 Mich. 274: Black, Am. Const. Law, 3d ed. p. 442; Seligman, Essays in Taxn. 7th ed. pp. 57, 77; Redfield, Theory & Practice of Taxn. p. 511; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 560, 581-584, 39 L. ed. 759, 812, 819, 820, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Story, Const. 5th ed. § 1399; Cooley, Const. Lim. pp. 237, 239, 240, 242-244; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 43 L. ed. 786, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch. 87, 135, 136, 143, 3 L. ed. 162, 177, 178, 180; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43, 50, 52, 3 L. ed. 659, 653, 654; Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 244, 4 L. ed. 559, 561; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 627, 657, 7 L. ed. 542, 553; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, 19 L. ed. 482, 485; Collector v. Day (Buffington v. Day) 11 Wall. 113, 123, 124, 127, 20 L. ed. 122, 125-127; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 427, 20 L. ed. 449, 451; Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654, 662, 20 L. ed. 689, 695; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 320, 21 L. ed. 179, 187; Union P. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall.

5, 30, 21 L. ed. 787, 791; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388, 1 L. ed. 648, 649; Citizens' Savings & L. Asso. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, 22 L. ed. 455; Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 535, 536, 28 L. ed. 232, 238, 239, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111, 292; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369, 370, 30 L. ed. 220, 226, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1964; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462, 467, 468, 35 L. ed. 225-227, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 577; Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657, 662, 37 L. ed. 599, 601, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 721; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 45, 38 L. ed. 896, 901, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1108; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 235237, 41 L. ed. 979, 984, 985, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 389, 390, 42 L. ed. 780, 790, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 76, 77, 109, 110, 44 L. ed. 969, 983, 984, 996, 997, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 63, 49 L. ed. 78, 98, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 448, 449, 451, 50 L. ed. 261, 264-266, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, 256, 51 L. ed. 461, 472, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245, 64 L. ed. 887, 11 A.L.R. 519, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 12 L. ed. 702; United States v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 17 Wall. 322, 21 L. ed. 597; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487, 27 L. ed. 238, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 442; Cole v. LaGrange, 113 U. S. 1, 28 L. ed. 896, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 416; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 279, 292, 43 L. ed. 443, 447, 452, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187; French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 181 U. S. 324, 344, 45 L. ed. 879, 889, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371, 384, 385, 45 L. ed. 900, 906, 907, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 616; Fallbrook Irrig. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158, 176, 177, 41 L. ed. 369, 388, 394, 395, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 563, 46 L. ed. 679, 691, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233, 238, 239, 64 L. ed. 878, 881, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 555, 23 L. ed. 588, 592; Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, 46 L. ed. 713, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493: McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 37, 24 L. ed. 335; United States v. Singer, 15 Wall. 111, 21 L. ed. 49; Cummings v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 101 U. S. 153, 157, 25 L. ed. 903, 904; Hagar v. Reelamation Dist. 111 U. S. 701, 705, 28 L. ed. 569, 571, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 663;

L. ed. 1151, 1153, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 132; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U. S. 61, 78, 79, 55 L. ed. 369, 377, 378, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 174, 55 L. ed. 389, 422, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Keeney v. New York, 222 U. S. 525, 536, 56 L. ed. 299, 305, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Second Employers' Liability Cases (Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.) 223 U. S. 1, 53, 56 L. ed. 327, 347, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 44, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 169, 1 N. C. C. A. 875; Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U. S. 59, 62, 56 L. ed. 350, 351, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192; Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U. S. 260, 270, 57 L. ed. 212, 216, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 71; Metropolis Theatre Co. v. Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 69, 70, 57 L. ed. 730, 733, 734, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441; Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U. S. 26, 29, 30, 57 L. ed. 1050, 1052, 1053, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 692; Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 283, 58 L. ed. 596, 606, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199, 215, 58 L. ed. 1276, 1283, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 525, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 859; Mt. St. Mary's Cemetery Asso. v. Mullins, 248 U. S. 501, 506, 63 L. ed. 383, 387, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173; Withnell v. Ruecking Constr. Co. 249 U. S. 63, 71, 63 L. ed. 479, 484, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 200; Dominion Hotel Co. v. Arizona, 249 U. S. 265, 63 L. ed. 597, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273; Chalker v. Birmingham & N. W. R. Co. 249 U. S. 522, 527, 63 L. ed. 748, 751, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 366; Mackay Teleg. & Cable Co. v. Little Rock, 250 U. S. 94, 100, 63 L. ed. 863, 869, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 428; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 541, 543, 63 L. ed. 1124, 1132, 1133, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Branson v. Bush, 251 U. S. 182, 189, 190, 64 L. ed. 215, 220, 221, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 113; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 58, 64 L. ed. 445, 459, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221; Goldsmith v. George G. Prendergast Constr. Co. 252 U. S. 12, 17, 18, 64 L. ed. 427, 430, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273; F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 64 L. ed. 989, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 560; Gast Realty & Invest. Co. V. Schneider Granite Co. 240 U. S. 55, 60 L. ed. 523,

Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 28
L. ed. 923, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; Soon
Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703, 28 L. ed.
1145, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730; Kentucky R.
Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321, 337, 29 L. ed.
414, 419, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57; Missouri
P. R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512, 523,
29 L. ed. 463, 466, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110;
Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572, 580,
29 L. ed. 735, 737, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510;
Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 30 L.
ed. 578, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350; Pacific Exp.
Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 351, 354,
35 L. ed. 1035, 1039, 1040, 3 Inters. Com.
Rep. 810, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 250; Magoun
v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U.
S. 283, 293, 294, 300, 42 L. ed. 1037,
1042, 1043, 1045, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594;
Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co.
(Cotting v. Godard) 183 U. S. 79, 112,
46 L. ed. 92, 109, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30;
Florida C. & P. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 183
U. S. 471, 477, 478, 46 L. ed. 283, 286,
287, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176; Armour Pack-
ing Co. v. Lacy, 200 U. S. 226, 236, 50
L. ed. 451, 457, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232;
New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204
U. S. 152, 159, 160, 51 L. ed. 415, 421,
422, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 9 Ann. Cas.
736; Travis v. Yale & T. Mfg. Co. 252
U. S. 60, 77, 78, 64 L. ed. 460, 468, 469,
40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 228; United States
v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 94, 63 L. ed.
493, 496, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214; Ballard
v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, 262, 51 L. ed.
461, 474, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; David-
son v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 107,
108, 24 L. ed. 616, 620, 621; Twining v.
New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 100, 101, 53
L. ed. 97, 106, 107, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 14;
Kentucky R. Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321,
337, 29 L. ed. 414, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57;
Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134
U. S. 232, 237, 33 L. ed. 892, 895, 10
Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; Gulf, C. & S. F. R.
Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 155, 41 L.
ed. 666, 668, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255;
American Sugar Ref. Co. v. Louisiana,
179 U. S. 89, 92, 45 L. ed. 102, 103, 21
Sup. Ct. Rep. 43; McHenry v. Alford,
168 U. S. 651, 666, 42 L. ed. 614,
619, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 242; Clark v.
Kansas City, 176 U. S. 114, 119. 44
L. ed. 392, 397, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep.
284; Billings v. Illinois, 188 U. S. 97,
101, 102, 47 L. ed. 400, 402, 403, 23
Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; District of Colum-36
bia v. Brooke, 214 U. S. 138, 150, 151,
53 L. ed. 941, 945, 946, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep.
560; Southern R. Co. v. Green, 216 U.
S. 400, 417, 54 L. ed. 536, 541, 30 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247; Griffith
v. Connecticut, 218 U. S. 563, 569, 54

Sup. Ct. Rep. 254; Houck V. Little River Drainage Dist. 239 U. S. 254, 262, 60 L. ed. 266, 274, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 58; Martin v. District of Columbia, 205 U. S. 135, 139, 51 L. ed. 743, 744, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 440; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 60 L. ed.

493, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; French v. Teschemaker, 24 Cal. 544; Miller v. Kister, 68 Cal. 142, 8 Pac. 813; Booth v. Woodbury, 32 Conn. 118; Herriott v. Potter, 115 Iowa, 648, 89 N. W. 91; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Clark, 60 Kan. 826, 47 L.R.A. 77, 58 Pac. 477; Sutton v. Louisville, 5 Dana, 28; Lexington v. McQuillan, 9 Dana, 513, 35 Am. Dec. 159; Cheaney v. Hooser, 9 B. Mon. 330; New Orleans Canal & Bkg. Co. v. New Orleans, 30 La. Ann. 1371; Com. v. People's Five Cents Sav. Bank, 5 Allen, 428; Freeland v. Hastings, 10 Allen, 570; Oliver v. Washington Mills, 11 Allen, 268; Portland Bank v. Apthorp, 12 Mass. 252; Cheshire v. Berkshire County, 118 Mass. 386; Woodbridge v. Detroit, 8 Mich. 274; Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269; People ex rel. Detroit & H. R. Co. v. Salem, 20 Mich. 452, 4 Am. Rep. 400; Callam v. Saginaw, 50 Mich. 7, 14 N. W. 677; Sanborn v. Rice County, 9 Minn. 273, Gil. 258; State ex rel. Foot v. Bazille, 97 Minn. 11, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 732, 106 N. W. 93, 7 Ann. Cas. 1056; Macon v. Patty, 57 Miss. 378, 34 Am. Rep. 451; Deal v. Mississippi County, 107 Mo. 464, 14 L.R.A. 622, 18 S. W. 24; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307, 21 L.R.A. 789, 22 S. W. 350; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163, 29 L.R.A. 257, 50 Am. St. Rep. 443, 31 S. W. 781; Magneau v. Fremont, 30 Neb. 843, 9 L.R.A. 786,

27 Am. St. Rep. 436, 47 N. W. 289; State v. United States & C. Exp. Co. 60 N. H. 219; Thompson v. Kidder, 74 N. H. 89, 65 Átl. 392, 12 Ann. Cas. 948; State ex rel. White House School Dist. v. Readington Twp. 36 N. J. L. 66; State, Agens, Prosecutor, v. Newark, 37 N. J. L. 415, 18 Am. Rep. 729; State ex rel. Richards v. Hammer, 42 N. J. L. 435; Maxwell v. Edwards, 89 N. J. L. 446, 99 Atl. 138; Tide-water Co. v. Coster, 18 N. J. Eq. 518, 90 Am. Dec. 634; People ex rel. Griffin v. Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419, 55 Am. Dec. 266; People ex rel. Farrington v. Mensching, 187 N. Y. 8, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 625, 79 N. E. 884, 10 Ann. Cas. 101; Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183, 30 Am. Rep. 289; People ex rel. Scott v. Pitt, 169 N. Y. 521, 58 L.R.A. 372, 62 N. E. 662; Re Pell, 171 N. Y. 48, 57 L.R.A. 540, 89 Am. St. Rep. 791, 63 N. E. 789; People ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 184 N. Y. 431, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 314, 112 Am. St. Rep. 628, 77 N. E. 970, 6 Ann. Cas. 515; People ex rel. Eisman v. Ronner, 185 N. Y. 285, 77 N. E. 1061; Re Keeney, 194 N. Y. 281, 87 N. E. 428, affirmed in 222 U.

S. 525, 56 L. ed. 299, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Puitt v. Gaston County, 94 N. C. 709, 55 Am. Rep. 638; Scovill v. Cleveland, 1 Ohio St. 126; DeBolt v. Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. 1 Ohio St. 563; Northern Indiana R. Co. v. Connelly, 10 Ohio St. 159; Ellis v. Frazier, 38 Or. 462, 53 L.R.A. 454, 63 Pac. 642; Bank of Pennsylvania v. Com. 19 Pa. 144; Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. 147, 59 Am. Dec. 759; Philadelphia Asso. v. Wood, 39 Pa. 73; Tyson v. School Directors, 51 Pa. 9; Durach's Appeal, 62 Pa. 491; Hammett ington Ave. 69 Pa. 352, 8 Am. Rep. 255; v. Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 146; Re WashFox's Appeal, 112 Pa. 337, 4 Atl. 149; Allegheny vania R. Co. 138 Pa. 375, 21 Atl. 763; City v. Western PennsylPittsburgh's Petition, 138 Pa..401, 21 Atl. 757, 759, 761; Re Morewood Ave. 159 Pa. 20, 28 Atl. 123, 132; Cope's EsSt. Rep. 749, 43 Atl. 79; Re McKennan, tate, 191 Pa. 1, 45 L.R.A. 316, 71 Am. 25 S. D. 369, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 606, 126 N. W. 611; Stratton Claimants v. MorTenn. 497, 12 L.R.A. 70, 15 S. W. 87; ris Claimants (Dibrell v. Lanier) 89 Allen v. Drew, 44 Vt. 174; Richmond & A. R. Co. v. Lynchbury, 81 Va. 473; Beals v. State, 139 Wis. 544, 121 N. W. 347; Black v. State, 113 Wis. 205, 90 Am. St. Rep. 853, 89 N. W. 522; Friend v. Levy, 76 Ohio St. 26, 80 N. E. 1036;

Curry v. Spencer, 61 N. H. 624, 60 Am. Rep. 337; State ex rel. Garth v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287, 40 L.R.A. 280, 65 Am. rel. Frye v. Bazille, 87 Minn. 500, 94 St. Rep. 653, 45 S. W. 245; State ex Am. St. Rep. 718, 92 N. W. 415; Drew v. Tifft, 79 Minn. 175, 47 L.R.A. 525, 79 Am. St. Rep. 446, 81 N. W. 839; State ex rel. Davidson v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 232, 2 L.R.A. 701, 41 N. W. 948.

The term "direct taxes," as used in the Constitution, embraces every exaction that rests upon the fact of ownership of real or personal property, as distinguished from a tax dependent upon the active use of property, the term "active use" not indicating the merely passive consequence of ownership, but rather the exercise of some right or privilege.

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 13, 60 L. ed. 493, 499, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; State Tonnage Tax Cases (Cox v. Lott) 12 Wall. 204, 215, 20 L. ed. 370, 374; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 319, 21 L. ed. 179, 186; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co.

Barbier v. Connolly
L. ed. 923, 5 Sup
Hing v. Crowley, !
1145, 5 Sup. Ct.
Tax Cases, 115 L
414, 419, 6 Sn.

P. R. Co. v. I
29 L. ed. 46.
Royall v.
29 L. ed.
Hayes v.
ed. 578.
Co. v.
35 L..
Rep.
v. 1

(

S. 16

er v.

The exaction is a tax upon property reason of its ownership.

Re Swift, 137 N. Y. 85, 18 L.R.A. 709, 32 N. E. 1096; United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 629, 41 L. ed. 287, 288, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Re Vanderbilt, 172 N. Y. 74, 64 N. E. 782; Re Keeney, 194 N. Y. 285, 87 N. E. 428, affirmed in 222 10. 64 | U. S. 525, 56 L. ed. 299, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) Sap. 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Flint v. 3. S. Stone Tracy Co. 20 U. S. 107, 163, 164, 23, 74, 19 55 L. ed. 389, 418, 419, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. e Tracy 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Hanson, 38. 31 Sup. Death Duties, 4th ed. p. 63; Atty. Gen. 123, 1312; v. Beech, [1899] A. C. 53, 68 L. J. Q. 22. S. 290, B. N. S. 130, 63 J. P. 116, 47 Week. Rep. C. Rep. 427; 257, 79 L. T. N. S. 565, 15 Times L. R. T. S. 41, 59, 85; Winans v. Atty. Gen. [1910] A. C. S Ct. Rep. 747. 27, 79 L. J. K. B. N. S. 156, 101 L. T. N. the essential char- S. 754, 26 Times L. R. 133, 54 Sol. Jo. tax, as it affects 133, 47 Scot. L. R. 593; People v. Pasecedent; it does not field, 284 Ill. 450, 120 N. E. 286; gor privilege, and the Roebling's Estate, 89 N. J. Eq. 166, 104 site and unavoidable. Atl. 295; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & a v. United States, 39 T. Co. 158 U. S. 601, 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sed in 199 U. S. 437, 50 | Sup. Ct. Rep. 912; Gallatin, Sketch of Sup. Ct. Rep. 110; Nicol Finances of United States, published in 3 L. S. 509, 521, 43 L. ed. 1796; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; Fair- 240 U. S. 1, 19, 60 L. ed. 493, 502, ited States, 181 U. S. 283, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, 1 ed. $62, 866, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. Ann. Cas. 1917B 713; Eisner v. MaFlint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. comber, 252 U. S. 189, 205, 64 L. ed. ::, 35 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, 521, 528, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747.

Cas. 1912B, 1312; Thomas V. ited States, 192 U. S. 363, 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U. S. 295, 37 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 58 L. ed. 596, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; Pierce v. United States, 232 U. S. 290, 291, 58 L. ed. 609, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; United States v. Goelet, 232 U. S. 293, 58 L. ed. 610, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; United States v. Bennett, 232 U. S. 299, 58 L. ed. 612, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 433; Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 331, 23 L. ed. 99; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436, 441, 446, 38 L. ed. 773, 776, 778, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 664, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865; Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, 617, 618, 46 L. ed. 713, 718, 719, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. MeClain, 192 U. S. 397, 401, 403, 48 L. ed. 496, 498, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376; Eliot v. Freeman, 220 U. S. 178, 187, 55 L. ed. 424, 428, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 360; United States v. Whitridge, 231 U. S. 144, 147, 58 L. ed. 159, 161, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24; Anderson v. Forty-Two Broadway Co. 239 U. S. 69, 72, 60 L. ed. 152, 154, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 17.

The words "the transfer of," in the phrase, "is hereby imposed upon the transfer of the net estate of every decedent," are of no effect, and cannot overcome the actual character of the exaction.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 145, 55 L. ed. 389, 411, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Pace v. Burgess, 92 U. S. 372, 376, 23 L. ed. 657, 660; Inman S. S. Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238, 244, 24 L. ed. 118, 122; Kentucky R. Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321, 29 L. ed. 414, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 80, 83, 44 L. ed. 969, 985, 986, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Helwig v. United States, 188 U. S. 605, 611, 47 L. ed. 614, 616, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 27, 54 L. ed. 355, 366, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Ludwig v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 216 U. S. 146, 162, 54 L. ed. 423, 429, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 380; Kansas City Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Botkin, 240 U. S. 227, 231, 235, 60 L. ed. 617, 618, 620, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Wagner v. Covington, 251 U. S. 95, 102, 64 L. ed. 157, 167, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 93; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v.

The exaction complained of is a mere unjustifiable taking of private property without due process of law.

State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 321, 21 L. ed. 179, 187; Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264, 283, 42 L. ed. 710, 747, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 45, 38 L. ed. 896, 901, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1108; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 43 L. ed. 443, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187; French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 181 U. S. 324, 344, 45 L. ed. 879, 889, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371, 384, 385, 45 L. ed. 900, 906, 907, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 616; Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, 256, 51 L. ed. 461, 472, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Phillip Wagner v. Leser, 239 U. S. 207, 220, 60 L. ed. 230, 237, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 24, 25 60 L. ed. 493, 504, L.R.A.1917D 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233, 238, 30239, 64 L. ed. 878, 881, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499.

Taxpayers are entitled to a liberal construction of § 203.

Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 227, 52 L. ed. | Gore, 253 U. S. 245, 64 L. ed. 887, 11 1031, 1037, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; St. A.L.R. 519, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 362, 59 L. ed. 265, 271, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 661, 31 L. ed. 205, 210, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 444, 6 L. ed. 678, 687; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 7 L. ed. 481; Dobbins v. Erie County, 16 Pet. 435, 10 L. ed. 1022; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, 174, 16 L. ed. 644, 646; Crandall v. Nevada, 6_Wall. 35, 18 L. ed. 745; Northern C. R. Co. v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262, 19 L. ed. 88; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. ed. 347; Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259, 268, 23 L. ed. 543, 547; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 568, 24 L. ed. 1015; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Texas. 105 U. S. 460, 465, 26 L. ed. 1067, 1068; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 129, 135, 29 L. ed. 830, 831, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 336, L. ed. 1200, 1201, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Atty-Gen. 125 U. S. 530, 552, 31 L. ed. 790, 794, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 961; Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S. 649, 32 L. ed. 311, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 134, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1380; Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 698, 39 L. ed. 311, 316, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 1, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268, 360; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 235, 41 L. ed. 979, 984, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 527, 42; L. ed. 819, 842, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; | Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 516, 43 L. ed. 786, 792, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283, 296, 45 L. ed. 862, 868, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 648, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 135; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 59, 49 L. ed. 78, 97, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. 211 U. S. 210, 226, 53 L. ed. 150, 158, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 67; Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56, 54 L. ed. 378, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 16, 60 L. ed. 493, 501, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U. S. 625, 630, 631, 60 L. ed. 830, 835, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 473; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 55, 64 L. ed. 445, 457, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 64 L. ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; Evans v.

Gould v. Gould, 245 U. S. 151, 62 L. ed. 211, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 63; Vanhorne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304, 316, 1 L. ed. 391, 396, Fed. Cas. No. 16,857; United States v. Isham, 17 Wall. 496, 504, 21 L. ed. 728, 730; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 129, 137, 29 L. ed. 830, 832, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645; Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. 609, 30 L. ed. 1012, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1240; Benziger v. United States, 192 U. S. 38, 55, 48 L. ed. 331, 338, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U. S. 468, 35 L. ed. 821, 12.Sup. Ct. Rep. 55; Treat v. White, 181 U. S. 264, 267, 45 L. ed. 853, 854, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 611; Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U. S. 578, 583, 46 L. ed. 697, 701, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 515; Crocker v. Malley, 249 U. S. 223, 233, 63 L. ed. 573, 576, 2 A.L.R. 1601, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 270; Edwards v. Wabash R. Co. — C. C. A. —, 264 Fed. 618; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 373, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; Re Ullmann, 263 Ill. 530, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1075, 105 N. E. 292, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 321; Martin L. Hall Co. v. Com. 215 Mass. 329, 102 N. E. 364; Atty-Gen. v. Clark, 222 Mass. 294, L.R.A.1916C, 679, 110 N. E. 299, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 119; Hill v. Treasurer, 229 Mass. 475, L.R.A.1918D, 337, 118 N. E. 891; Re Cooley, 186 N. Y. 220, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1010, 78 N. E. 939; State

« Forrige Fortsett »

Bøker

Cases Argued and Decided in the Supreme Court of the United ..., Volumer 254-256