City Bank Farmers Trust Co v. Schnader, No. 30

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBUTLER
Citation79 L.Ed. 228,55 S.Ct. 29,293 U.S. 112
Docket NumberNo. 30
Decision Date05 November 1934
PartiesCITY BANK FARMERS' TRUST CO. v. SCHNADER, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, et al

293 U.S. 112
55 S.Ct. 29
79 L.Ed. 228
CITY BANK FARMERS' TRUST CO.

v.

SCHNADER, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, et al.

No. 30.
Argued Oct. 15, 1934.
Decided Nov. 5, 1934.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Page 113

Messrs. Henry S. Drinker, Jr., and Leslie M. Swope, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 113-115 intentionally omitted]

Page 115

Mr. Wm. A. Schnader, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.

Page 116

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Pennsylvania inheritance tax law imposes a tax upon the transfer by will or intestate laws of personal property within the commonwealth when the decedent is a nonresident at the time of his death.1 Thomas B. Clarke, a resident of New York, loaned paintings to a museum in Pennsylvania and died testate while they were on exhibition there. His will was admitted to probate in New York, and letters testamentary issued to appellant to which, as trustee, the residuary clause transferred the pictures. The appellees, acting respectively as Attorney General and secretary of revenue of Pennsylvania, proceeded to appraise and assess the pictures for the purpose of collecting the inheritance tax.

Appellant, maintaining that when the owner died the paintings had no actual situs within Pennsylvania because only temporarily there, brought this suit to enjoin enforcement on the ground that, if the statute be construed to tax the transfer by the death of the nonresident owner, it is repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the transfer cannot be subjected to taxes imposed by more than one state (Frick v.

Page 117

Pennsylvania, 268 U.S. 473, 488—492, 45 S.Ct. 603, 69 L.Ed. 1058, 42 A.L.R. 316; Safe Deposit & T. Co. v. Virginia, 280 U.S. 83, 93, 50 S.Ct. 59, 74 L.Ed. 180, 67 A.L.R. 386; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota, 280 U.S. 204, 210, 50 S.Ct. 98, 74 L.Ed. 371, 65 A.L.R. 1000; First National Bank v. Maine, 284 U.S. 312, 326, 327, 52 S.Ct. 174, 76 L.Ed. 313, 77 A.L.R. 1401), appellant framed its complaint to call for a decision whether Pennsylvania or New York is entitled to the tax. The New York tax commission as amicus curiae filed briefs below and also in this court supporting the claim that the transfer is subject to the New York tax.

The District Court, consisting of three judges, section 266, Jud. Code (28 USCA § 380) dismissed the suit on the ground that appellant had an adequate remedy at law. This court reversed and remanded the case, with instructions to reinstate the bill and proceed to a hearing upon the merits. City Bank Farmers' Trust Co. v. Schnader, 291 U.S. 24, 54 S.Ct. 259, 78 L.Ed. 628. Then the case was submitted and tried on the facts alleged in the bill and answer and additional ones that were stipulated by the parties. Upon the circumstances detailed in its findings, the court concluded that 79 portraits belonging to Clarke that were included in the collection on exhibition in the Pennsylvania museum at the time of his death then had an actual situs in that state, and held the transfer subject to the Pennsylvania inheritance tax.

The material substance of the findings follows:

In March, 1928, Clarke, at the request of the director of the Pennsylvania museum, loaned to it the 79 pictures, together with 85 others owned by a corporation of which he was sole stockholder. At the time of the loan, they were, and long had been kept, in New York City; 5 were at his residence, 10 were on exhibition, and the remaining 64 were in storage. When the pictures were sent to Pennsylvania, Clarke surrendered his lease for the storage space, and thereafter did nothing to secure another place in which to put them. But suitable space was always readily available in New York.

Page 118

The arrangement with the museum was oral; no consideration was to be paid; and it was understood that at any time on Clarke's request the pictures would be returned to him. In the spring of 1929, Clarke wrote the director, at the latter's solicitation, that he would sell the entire collection at a stated price to any one who would present it to the museum; it being understood that he would allow the pictures to remain at the museum for a reasonable time for the director to find such a donor. In May, 1930, he stated that this arrangement...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Miller Bros Co v. State of Maryland, No. 160
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 5 de abril de 1954
    ...Johnson Oil Refining Co. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Mitchell, 290 U.S. 158, 54 S.Ct. 152, 78 L.Ed. 238; City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Schnader, 293 U.S. 112, 55 S.Ct. 29, 79 L.Ed. 228; Ott v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co., 336 U.S. 169, 69 S.Ct. 432, 93 L.Ed. 585. See Hays v. Pacific Mail S.S......
  • Comptroller of Treasury v. Taylor, No. 56, Sept. Term, 2018
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 29 de julho de 2019
    ...rule against taxation of tangible property with a permanent situs outside the taxing state. City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Schnader , 293 U.S. 112, 118-19, 55 S.Ct. 29, 79 L.Ed. 228 (1934) ("The power to regulate the transmission ... of tangible personal property rests exclusively in the st......
  • Curry v. Canless, No. 339
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 29 de maio de 1939
    ...National Bank v. Maine, 284 U.S. 312, 328, 52 S.Ct. 174, 177, 76 L.Ed. 313, 77 A.L.R. 1401; City Bank Farmers' Trust Co. v. Schnader, 293 U.S. 112, 116, 117, 55 S.Ct. 29, 79 L.Ed. 228. See Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 401, 402, 53 S.Ct. 457, 463, 464, 77 L.Ed. 844, 86 A.L.R. 747; Senior ......
  • Lummis v. White, No. 79-2898
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 27 de outubro de 1980
    ...situs. See Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (26 S.Ct. 36, 50 L.Ed. 150); City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Schnader, 293 U.S. 112 (55 S.Ct. 29, 79 L.Ed. 228) . . . (I)ntangible personal property may, at least theoretically, be taxed only at the place of the owner's domi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Miller Bros Co v. State of Maryland, No. 160
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 5 de abril de 1954
    ...Johnson Oil Refining Co. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Mitchell, 290 U.S. 158, 54 S.Ct. 152, 78 L.Ed. 238; City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Schnader, 293 U.S. 112, 55 S.Ct. 29, 79 L.Ed. 228; Ott v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co., 336 U.S. 169, 69 S.Ct. 432, 93 L.Ed. 585. See Hays v. Pacific Mail S.S......
  • Comptroller of Treasury v. Taylor, No. 56, Sept. Term, 2018
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 29 de julho de 2019
    ...rule against taxation of tangible property with a permanent situs outside the taxing state. City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Schnader , 293 U.S. 112, 118-19, 55 S.Ct. 29, 79 L.Ed. 228 (1934) ("The power to regulate the transmission ... of tangible personal property rests exclusively in the st......
  • Curry v. Canless, No. 339
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 29 de maio de 1939
    ...National Bank v. Maine, 284 U.S. 312, 328, 52 S.Ct. 174, 177, 76 L.Ed. 313, 77 A.L.R. 1401; City Bank Farmers' Trust Co. v. Schnader, 293 U.S. 112, 116, 117, 55 S.Ct. 29, 79 L.Ed. 228. See Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 401, 402, 53 S.Ct. 457, 463, 464, 77 L.Ed. 844, 86 A.L.R. 747; Senior ......
  • Lummis v. White, No. 79-2898
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 27 de outubro de 1980
    ...situs. See Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (26 S.Ct. 36, 50 L.Ed. 150); City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Schnader, 293 U.S. 112 (55 S.Ct. 29, 79 L.Ed. 228) . . . (I)ntangible personal property may, at least theoretically, be taxed only at the place of the owner's domi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT