Moore v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 13 June 1928 |
| Citation | 28 F.2d 997 |
| Parties | MOORE, Treasurer of Grant County, Ind., v. MITCHELL et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Russell H. Robbins, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, of New York City (Louis Connick and W. N. Seymour, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.
This suit is brought by plaintiff in his capacity as treasurer of Grant county, Ind., against the executors of Richard Edwards Breed, deceased, to recover certain taxes which it is said arose, and were incurred by the decedent, during his lifetime, and while he was a resident of that state. The executors are residents of New York, and were appointed by authority of the Surrogate's Court of New York county. The property in their possession consists of certain securities which were owned by Breed, but which never were physically within the state of Indiana. Under the law of New York, as declared by its Court of Appeals, a claim of the character here made against defendants will not be enforced by the local courts. State of Colorado v. Harbeck, 232 N. Y. 71, 133 N. E. 357. Were this court to give judgment against the executors, they might find themselves in a highly embarrassing situation, if, after paying a judgment in favor of plaintiff, the court which appointed them should refuse to credit such payment upon the settlement of their accounts.
This possibility, in the absence of certainty that the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the present suit, would counsel hesitation before subjecting the executors to the peril to which reference has been made. In such event, I should be inclined to dismiss the complaint, and thus allow the propriety of the suit to be pronounced by an appellate court before permitting a judgment to go against the defendants.
There is, however, another consideration which strengthens my belief that the complaint should be dismissed. It is that plaintiff has not called attention to a single authoritative decision which, under circumstances such as are revealed by the present pleading, permitted the tax collecting officer of a political subdivision of one state, or the revenue authorities of such state, to go within the borders of another, and there collect taxes from property that never was within the jurisdiction where the assessment was made, or from persons who were nonresidents of the sovereignty which authorized the assessment. The inability of the plaintiff to point to some substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. First National City Bank
...an action in the courts of another state for the collection of a tax claim. Government of India v. Taylor, 1955 A.C. 516; Moore v. Mitchell, 28 F.2d 997 (S.D.N.Y. 1928), aff'd, 30 F.2d 600, 65 A.L.R. 1354 (2d Cir., 1929), aff'd on other grounds, 281 U.S. 18, 50 S.Ct. 175, 74 L.Ed. 673 (1930......
-
City of Detroit v. Proctor
...This was an attempt to enforce a revenue law of Indiana in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, 28 F.2d 997. The District Court dismissed the action and the Circuit of Appeals affirmed. The opinion of Judge Manton, in which Judge Augustus Hand concu......
-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ETC. v. Gilbertson, Civ. No. 76-457.
...Colorado v. Harbeck, 232 N.Y. 71, 133 N.E. 357 (1921). Judge Learned Hand gave a rationalization for this rule in Moore v. Mitchell, 28 F.2d 997 (D.N.Y.1928), aff'd, 30 F.2d 600 (2d Cir. 1929), aff'd on other grounds, 281 U.S. 18, 50 S.Ct. 175, 74 L.Ed. 673 (1930). In Moore, the issue befor......
- Kehota Mining Co. v. Lewellyn