Dorrance v. Thayer-Martin

• Decision Date: 30 April 1936
• Citation: Dorrance v. Thayer-Martin, 116 N.J.L. 362, 184 A. 743 (N.J. 1936)
• Docket Number: 84
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: ETHEL M. DORRANCE ET AL., PROSECUTORS-APPELLANTS, v. J. H. THAYER-MARTIN, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT

184 A. 743

Ethel M. DORRANCE et al., Prosecutors-Appellants

v. J. H. Thayer MARTIN, State Tax Commissioner, Defendant-Respondent. ^*

No. 84.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

April 30, 1936.

On appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 176 A. 902, 13 N.J.Misc. 168, affirming a decree of the Prerogative Court advised by Vice Ordinary Buchanan, whose opinions are reported in In re Dorrance's Estate, 115 N.J.Eq. 268, 170 A. 601, and id., 116 N.J.Eq. 204, 172 A. 503.

John Milton, of Jersey City, and William A. Schnader, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

David T. Wilentz, of Perth Amboy, and Duane E. Minard and George S. Hobart, both of Newark, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion Per Curiam filed in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices LLOYD, BODINE, DONGES, and Judges DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, and RAFFERTY—8.

For modification: Justice CASE and Judge HETFIELD—2.

CASE, Justice (dissenting in part).

The appellants present as their twelfth point that the court below erred in disallowing as a deduction transfer inheritance taxes paid the commonwealth of Pennsylvania in approximately the sum of $14,394,698.88. Our statute (P.L. 1929, c. 144 [Comp.St.Supp 1930, § 208—537]) provides that in determining the clear market value of the property transferred for the purpose of computing the tax on the transfer, certain deductions shall be allowed. Included in the specified deductions are: "Transfer taxes paid or payable to other states * * on any property the transfer of which is taxable hereunder." The opinion of the Vice Ordinary was that in enacting that legislation the Legislature "necessarily meant transfer taxes for which there was a legal liability on the part of the estate, under the laws of this state or binding this state." I find nothing in the statute to sustain that construction. The tax paid to the state of Pennsylvania was a transfer tax. Appellants vigorously fought the assessment. They carried the litigation to the highest Pennsylvania court (In re Dorrance's Estate, 309 Pa. 151, 163 A. 303) and endeavored, unsuccessfully, to have the adverse decision reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. Dorrance v. Commonwealth, 287 U.S. 660, 53 S.Ct. 222, 77 L.Ed. 570; Id., 288 U.S. 617, 53 S.Ct. 507, 77 L.Ed. 990. The tax was imposed was sustained, had to be paid, and was paid. The estate was depleted in the amount of it. The situation comes fully, as I see it, within the terms of the statute.

It is said that Mr. Dorrance could not have been domiciled in two states...