Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Eidman Vs. Martinez

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 17, 1902

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

73 entries 7 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Ennis Vs. Smith US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1852
  2. Walworth Vs. Harris US Supreme Court · Feb 04, 1889
    Relied / Followed
  3. Pullman's Palace Car Co. Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · May 25, 1891
    Relied / Followed
  4. New Orleans Vs. Stempel US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1899
    Relied / Followed
  5. Doe Vs. Smith US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1988
  6. Hartranft Vs. Wiegmann US Supreme Court · May 02, 1887
  7. Arnold Vs. Arnold Kolkata · Jan 31, 1911
  8. U.S. 578 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Eidman v. Martinez
    Search
  9. U.S. 578 (1902) Eidman v. Martinez
    Search
  10. by will, and is descendible by inheritance according to the law of the domicil, and not by that of its situs. Cross v. United
    Search
  11. Damment v. Osborn
    Search
  12. of the local government. These doctrines have found expression in a large number of cases in this Court. Green v. Van
    Search
  13. Hervey v. Rhode
    Search
  14. Security Trust Company v. Dodd
    Search
  15. Erie Railway Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  16. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  17. Marye v. Baltimore
    Search
  18. Adams Express Co. v. Ohio
    Search
  19. U. S. 185 . The same principle has been applied not only to tangible property but to credits and effects. Tappan v. Merchants'
    Search
  20. Savings Society v. Multnomah
    Search
  21. Bristol v. Washington
    Search
  22. of nonresidents, both tangible and intangible, since that is well established both in England and America, Mager v. Grima
    Search
  23. language, and that a liberal construction be given to words of exception confining the operation of duty, Warrington v. Furbor
    Search
  24. Williams v. Sanger
    Search
  25. Denn v. Diamond
    Search
  26. Tomkins v. Ashby
    Search
  27. Wroughton v. Turtle
    Search
  28. Gurr v. Scudds
    Search
  29. of Congress to impose or increase a tax upon imports should be expressed in clear and unambiguous language. Hartranft v. Wiegmann
    Search
  30. American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington
    Search
  31. United States v. Wigglesworth
    Search
  32. Powers v. Barney
    Search
  33. In Attorney General v. Cockerell
    Search
  34. possession, although the stress of the case was laid upon the residence of the legatees in England. Attorney General v. Beatson
    Search
  35. and the domicil to be the situs of the personal property. The two cases from Price were not cited. In Jackson v. Forbes
    Search
  36. cited, but not discussed. This case was subsequently affirmed by the House of Lords under the name of Attorney General v. Jackson
    Search
  37. Bligh. (N.S.) 15. The case of Logan v. Fairlie
    Search
  38. Mylne & Craig 59, was a similar case, and the legacy was held to be exempt upon its authority. But in Arnold v. Arnold
    Search
  39. there, the legacy tax was held not to be payable, and the question was regarded as finally settled by Attorney General v. Jackson
    Search
  40. The two cases from Price were overruled. Finally, in Thomson v. Advocate
    Search
  41. to legacy duty. There are some later cases in England, but none that seem to qualify the rule laid down in Thomson v. Advocate
    Search
  42. the Legacy Act of George III and the Succession Duty Act, and a broader construction given to the latter. In Wallace v. Attorney
    Search
  43. on legacies given by the will of a person domiciled in a foreign country. The law was treated as settled by Thomson v. Advocate
    Search
  44. and the question discussed on principle in a vigorous opinion. The converse of this case is that of Attorney General v. Napier
    Search
  45. to that of Ewin, 1 Cr. & Jer. 151, above cited, though decided twenty years later. See also Attorney General v. Campbell
    Search
  46. Lyall v. Lyall
    Search
  47. and it was held in State v. Dalrymple
    Search
  48. not to the person, of course, its liability followed. A like construction was given to the same words in Commonwealth v. Smith
    Search
  49. In re Short, 16 Pa. 63. The case of Billings v. People
    Search
  50. were domiciled in Illinois, and the question was as to the liability of the widow's dower. The case of Alvany v. Powell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial