Handy Vs. Delaware Trust Co.

Handy vs Delaware Trust Co.

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Mar-21-1932

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/95639

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/95639
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Mar-21-1932
Case Number: 285 U.S. 352
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Handy

Respondent

Delaware Trust Co.

Excerpt

.....case, like no. 514, heiner v. donnan, ante, p. 285 u. s. 312 , is here on a certificate from the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit. the question submitted is: "does the second sentence of § 302(c) of the revenue act of 1926 violate the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the constitution of the united states? " page 285 u. s. 355 in this case, as in no. 514, just decided, the decedent, within two years prior to his death, had made transfers inter vivos without consideration which were complete and irrevocable. the commissioner included the value of the property so transferred in the value of the gross estate, and assessed a death transfer tax accordingly. following a claim for refund and its rejection, the executor brought this action to recover the amount of the tax attributable to such inclusion. the trial court found that, in fact, none of the transfers had been made in contemplation of death, and rendered judgment for the executor for the amount claimed on the ground that § 302(c) violated the due process clause of the fifth amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional. our decision in no. 514 requires an affirmative answer to the question submitted. it is so ordered. mr. justice cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Full Judgment

Handy v. Delaware Trust Co. - 285 U.S. 352 (1932)
U.S. Supreme Court Handy v. Delaware Trust Co., 285 U.S. 352 (1932)

Handy v. Delaware Trust Co.

No. 546

Argued February 26, 1932

Decided March 21, 1932

285 U.S. 352

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

SYLLABUS

Decided upon the authority of Heiner v. Donan, ante, p. 285 U. S. 312 .

Certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals upon an appeal from a judgment of the District Court, 51 F.2d 867, against the Collector on a claim for refund of taxes alleged to have been illegally exacted.

Page 285 U. S. 354

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case, like No. 514, Heiner v. Donnan, ante, p. 285 U. S. 312 , is here on a certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The question submitted is:

"Does the second sentence of § 302(c) of the revenue act of 1926 violate the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States? "

Page 285 U. S. 355

In this case, as in No. 514, just decided, the decedent, within two years prior to his death, had made transfers inter vivos without consideration which were complete and irrevocable. The Commissioner included the value of the property so transferred in the value of the gross estate, and assessed a death transfer tax accordingly. Following a claim for refund and its rejection, the executor brought this action to recover the amount of the tax attributable to such inclusion. The trial court found that, in fact, none of the transfers had been made in contemplation of death, and rendered judgment for the executor for the amount claimed on the ground that § 302(c) violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional.

Our decision in No. 514 requires an affirmative answer to the question submitted.

It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Same Parties Handy vs Delaware Trust Co. Same Subject Land Acquisition