Citation network
Safe Deposit and Trust Co. Vs. Commonwealth
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 25, 1929
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. CommonwealthSearch
-
U.S. 83 (1929) U.S. Supreme Court Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. CommonwealthSearch
-
U.S. 83 (1929) Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. CommonwealthSearch
-
of the trust company -- holder of the legal title. That they are property within Maryland is not questioned. De Ganay v. LedererSearch
-
personam may be applied in order to determine the situs of intangible personal property for taxation. Blodgett v. SilbermanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
result in inescapable and patent injustice, whether through double taxation or otherwise. State Board of Assessors v. ComptoirSearch
-
Ins. Co. v. OrleansSearch
-
in the securities actually owned by one of her resident citizens is not now presented for consideration. See Maguire v. TrefrySearch
-
wholly beyond her jurisdiction or control conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment. Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. KentuckySearch
-
Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. DoughtonSearch
-
permanently located beyond the owner's domicile may not be taxed at the latter place. Union Refrig. Transit Co. v. KentuckySearch
-
personal property may acquire a taxable situs where permanently located, employed, and protected. New Orleans v. StempleSearch
-
Bristol v. WashingtonSearch
-
State Board of Assessors v. ComptoirSearch
-
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. NewSearch
-
Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. OrleansSearch
-
at the latter's domicile in another state. We think not. The reasons which led this Court in Union Refrig. Transit Co. v. KentuckySearch
-
U. S. 194 , and Frick v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
No opinion of this Court seems definitely to rule the exact point now presented. Blackstone v. MillerSearch
-
have taxable situs within her borders, under the will of a citizen of Illinois. Page 280 U. S. 94 In Wheeler v. SohmerSearch
-
the tax was not laid at the owner's domicile, but by the state wherein the securities were deposited. Bullen v. WisconsinSearch
-
but the creator had retained full power to revoke the trust and regain control. Fidelity & Columbian Trust Co. v. LouisvilleSearch
-
the deposits in St. Louis banks, and might have brought the entire fund within Kentucky's jurisdiction. In Blodgett v. SilbermanSearch
-
possession and control there, and so is forbidden as an attempt to tax property without the jurisdiction. Brooke v. NorfolkSearch
-
presented by the record, and so, under the settled rule of decision of this Court, ought not now to be decided. Burton v. UnitedSearch
-
Blair v. UnitedSearch
-
Flint v. Stone-TracySearch
-
Light v. UnitedSearch
-
if the threat of double taxation were controlling, which, under the decisions, it is not, Fidelity & Columbia Tr. Co. v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Cream of Wheat Co. v. GrandSearch
-
Swiss Oil Corp. v. ShanksSearch
-
affect the right of Virginia by reason of anything that I know of in the Constitution of the United States. Bonaparte v. AppealSearch
-
Hawley v. MaldenSearch
-
Citizens National Bank v. DurrSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 277 U. S. 10 . Compare with the last case Wheeler v. SohmerSearch
-
to tangibles that in a plain and obvious way owed their protection to another power. Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. KentuckySearch
-
It opens vistas to extend the restriction to stocks and bonds in a way that I cannot reconcile with Blodgett v. SilbermanSearch
-
by reference to the riches of the person taxed, on grounds not of fiction, but of fact. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. LouisvilleSearch
-
on the wrong thing. The owner may be taxed for it although it never has been within the state. Southern Pacific Co. v. KentuckySearch
-
may tax the owner of bonds of another state, although it certainly contributes nothing to their validity. Bonaparte v. AppealSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial