Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U.S. 18 (1933)
U.S. Supreme Court, (October 18, 1933)
Docket number: 27
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/20017311
Id. vLex: VLEX-20017311
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Search in this document
Document options
RSSConstitution of the United States (Annotated) - Eleventh Amendment: Suits Against States
U.S. Supreme Court - Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381 (1998)
U.S. Supreme Court - Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation v. Hood, 541 U.S. 440 (2004)
U.S. Supreme Court - Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468 (1987)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Elvira Vecchione and Walter Buress and all Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Helene Wohlgemuth, Secretary, Department of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Franklyn R. Clarke, M. D., Superintendent, Philadelphia State Hospital At Byberry, Elwood N. Shoemaker, Revenue Agent, Philadelphia State Hospital At Byberry, Frank Beal Et Al., Defendants-Appellants., 558 F.2d 150 (3rd Cir. 1977) Secretary, Department of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Franklyn R. Clarke, M. D., Superintendent, Philadelphia State Hospital At Byberry, Elwood N. Shoemaker, Revenue Agent, Philadelphia State Hospital At Byberry, Frank Beal Et Al., Defendants-Appellants.
U.S. Supreme Court STATE OF MISSOURI v. FISKE, 290 U.S. 18 (1933)
[Page 290 U.S. 18, 29] We express no opinion upon the question whether the decree of the District Court, entered during the lifetime of Sophie Franz, the life tenant, in this suit to which she, her trustees, and the remaindermen were parties, can be regarded as binding upon the state of Missouri with respect to its subsequent claim for inheritance taxes against the shares in controversy as a part of the life tenant's estate. That question is not before us. Whatever may be found to be the effect of this decree in that relation, the result is the same so far as the present question of the right of respondents to bring this bill against the state is concerned. If the state, by reason of the fact that it was not a party to the litigation, is not bound by the decree, it is manifestly free to litigate its claim to the taxes in the proceeding it has instituted in its own court. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 222, 1 S.Ct. 240; Tindal v. Wesley, supra, 167 U.S. page 223, 17 S.Ct. 770; McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268, 282, 30 S.Ct. 501. But, if the decree of the federal court can be considered as determining the ownership of the shares so as to bind the state in later tax proceedings upon the death of the life tenant, and there is a federal right to have that effect given to the decree, that federal right can be specially set up and claimed in the proceeding in the state court, and, if the right is finally denied, the decision may be the subject of review by this Court in case the appropriate procedure is followed. Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank Co., 215 U.S. 33, 46, 30 S.Ct. 10. See Tilt v. Kelsey, , 28 S.Ct. 1. The contention that the question of ownership of the shares has been finally determined by the federal court affords no ground for the conclusion that the federal court may entertain a suit against the state, without its consent, to prevent the state from seeking to litigate that question in the state court. The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court, with directions to dismiss the ancillary and supplemental bill. It is so ordered.