Citation network
Senior Vs. Braden
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 20, 1935
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 422 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Senior v. BradenSearch
-
U.S. 422 (1935) Senior v. BradenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
we must ascertain for ourselves upon that it was laid. Our concern in with realities, not nomenclature. Moffitt v. KellySearch
-
Macallen Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Lawrence v. StateSearch
-
one piece of land, and is free from control by the beneficiaries. They are not joined with it in management. See Hecht v. MalleySearch
-
in articles by Professor Scott and Dean Stone in 17 Columbia Law Review (1917) at pp. 269 and 467. Maguire v. TrefrySearch
-
directly to the trustee was not within the statute. The opinion accepted and followed the doctrine of Blackstone v. MillerSearch
-
U. S. 189 , and Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. LouisvilleSearch
-
U. S. 54 . Those cases were disapproved by Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
U. S. 204 . They are not in harmony with Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
U. S. 83 , and views now accepted here in respect of double taxation. See Baldwin v. MissouriSearch
-
Beidler v. SouthSearch
-
First National Bank v. MaineSearch
-
U. S. 312 . In Brown v. FletcherSearch
-
had been invested in tangible personal property, there is, as pointed out in the Bushnell case ( Bushnell v. KennedySearch
-
benefit, though defeasible, was alienable to the same extent as though in his own possession and passed by deed. Ham v. VanSearch
-
Stringer v. YoungSearch
-
Lawrence v. BayardSearch
-
Woodward v. WoodwardSearch
-
The doctrine of Brown v. FletcherSearch
-
is adequately supported by courts and writers. Narragansett Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. BurnhamSearch
-
Bates v. DecreeSearch
-
to defray the expenses of government and to distribute the burden among those who must bear it. See Alabama v. UnitedSearch
-
when the sovereignty imposing the tax is that of two or more states. See Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
Burnet v. BrooksSearch
-
in order to compel payment of the tax. See Union Refrigerator Transit Page 295 U. S. 435 Co. v. KentuckySearch
-
shares of stock in a foreign corporation whose only property is real estate or chattels located elsewhere, Darnell v. IndianaSearch
-
Hawley v. MaldenSearch
-
Corry v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Cream of Wheat Co. v. CountySearch
-
to tax a valuable contract for the purchase of land or chattels located in another state, see Citizen's National Bank v. DurrSearch
-
Gish v. ShaverSearch
-
Golden v. MunsingerSearch
-
Marquette v. MichiganSearch
-
of real estate located without the state even though the land affords the only source of payment, see Kirtland v. HotchkissSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial