New York Trust Co. v. Island Oil & Transport Corporation
| Decision Date | 05 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 277.,277. |
| Citation | 11 F.2d 698 |
| Parties | NEW YORK TRUST CO. v. ISLAND OIL & TRANSPORT CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Chadbourne, Hunt, Jaeckel & Brown, of New York City (William M. Chadbourne, Clinton De Witt Van Siclen, and Wellington S. Crouse, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Kohlman & Austrian, of New York City (Sydney Krause, Frederick T. Kelsey, and Francis L. Kohlman, all of New York City, of counsel), for receivers.
Geddes H. Winston and Irving E. Campbell, both of Richmond, Va., appeared by permission of the court for the state of Virginia.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
HOUGH, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The record suggests two questions; strictly speaking the order appealed from answered neither. They are: (1) Is the state of Virginia entitled to the tax as matter of law? (2) Is it expedient to pay the tax as an expense of administration? The order merely "authorized" the receivers to pay the tax; it affords no information as to why authorization was given.
From the memorandum filed below, we are inclined to think that the learned judge considered it fair, or prudent, or "equitable" to have the tax paid; he did not hold any legal duty to pay lay on the receivers.
If these receivers had been appointed by a national court sitting in Virginia, if the assets were in that state, and it had demanded as of right preferential payment of this tax, payment would have been due, if the law of Virginia so held. The priority demanded would have been "enforceable against the property in the hands of a receiver appointed by a federal court within the state." Marshall v. New York, 254 U. S. 380, at page 385, 41 S. Ct. 143, 145 (65 L. Ed. 315).
If, however, in this suit and in the state of New York, Virginia had appeared and demanded payment, we think it could not have recovered.
Undoubtedly Virginia can go on taxing its own corporation as long as that corporation exists; but its right to recover against any property must rest either upon its sovereign power or upon statutes passed in pursuance thereof. But neither its sovereignty nor its statutes has any extraterritorial vigor.
The matter was in our judgment covered by Putnam, J., in Franklin, etc., Co. v. New Jersey, 181 F. 769, at page 776, 104 C. C. A. 629, 636, thus:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Okl. Tax Commission v. Rodgers
... ... Stewart, the ... payee, resided in New York, where the note was to be paid. By ... the laws of France, ... case from the same court is New York Trust Co. v. Island ... Oil & Transport Corporation et al., ... ...
-
In re Pressed Steel Car Co. of New Jersey, 6585.
...determined by the state, not be paid?" The decision of Judge Knox was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 11 F.2d 698, though upon the ground that it was within the discretion of the District Judge to order the payment in question. A statement similar in subst......
-
People of New York v. United States, 7017.
...foreign receiver as a condition of his administering the assets of a foreign corporation in a foreign court. New York Trust Co. v. Island Oil & Transport Corp., 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 698; Franklin Trust Co. v. State of New Jersey, 1 Cir., 181 F. We have not discussed the priority claim for franch......
- Caruso v. Forslund