Equity avoids the danger by requiring the rival claimants to litigate before it the decisive issue, and will not withhold its aid where the plaintiff's interest is either not denied or he does not assert any claim adverse to that of the other parties other than the single claim determination of which is decisive of the rights of all. Pacific National Bank v. Mixter, U. Life Assur.
- Tax Issues for Unmarried Couples;
- Common-law marriage in the United States - Wikipedia.
- Some benefits are similar to marriage, if you meet the requirements.
- obama cant produce birth certificate.
Loeb, F. Shubert Theatrical Co. Rowe, 52 N. Cryer, 68 N. When, by appropriate procedure, a court possessing equity powers is in such circumstances asked to prevent the loss which might otherwise result from the independent prosecution of rival but mutually exclusive claims, a justiciable issue is presented for adjudication which, because it is a recognized subject of the equity procedure which we have inherited from England, is a "case" or "controversy," within the meaning of the Constitutional provision, and when the case is one prosecuted between states, which are the rival claimants, and the risk of loss.
See Nashville, C. Wallace, U.
Navigation menu
Here, it is conceded by the pleadings and upon brief and argument that the sole legal basis asserted by the four states for the imposition of death taxes on decedent's intangibles is his domicile at death in the taxing state. There is no question presented of a situs of decedent's intangibles differing, for tax purposes, from the place of his domicile, such as was considered in New Orleans v.
Stempel, U. Virginia, U. South Carolina Tax Commission, U. Maine, U. Fox, U. Minnesota, U. Stokes, Tenn.
- Divorce Laws in Florida;
- Briefing Book.
- Community Property States List.
- Texas v. Florida :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center.
- approach forward group iraq new report study vintage way.
- Key Elements of the U.S. Tax System;
- Does Florida recognize common law marriage?;
Elliott, N. And no determination made here as to domicile can hereafter foreclose the determination of such questions by any court of competent jurisdiction in which they may arise. By the law of each state, a decedent can have only a single domicile for purposes of death taxes, and determination of the place of domicile of decedent will determine which of the four states is entitled to impose the tax on intangibles so far as they have no situs different from the place of domicile.
No relief is sought to restrain collection of the tax or to interfere with the determination of its amount by appropriate state procedure. The Special Master has found that each of the four states in good faith asserts that the decedent was domiciled within it at his death; that, prior to the commencement of these proceedings, each state in good faith was preparing to enforce a lien on decedent's intangibles,.
The risk that decedent's estate might constitutionally be subjected to conflicting tax assessments in excess of its total value, and that the right of complainant or some other state to collect the tax might thus be defeated was a real one, due both to the jurisdictional peculiarities of our dual federal and state judicial systems and to the special circumstances of this case.
That two or more states may each constitutionally assess death taxes on a decedent's intangibles upon a judicial determination that the decedent was domiciled within it in proceedings binding upon the representatives of the estate, but to which the other states are not parties, is an established principle of our federal jurisprudence. Thormann v. Frame, U.
Gordon, U. Ernst, U. Slimmer, U. Riley, U. And a judgment thus obtained is binding on the parties to it and constitutionally entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of every other state.
Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1939)
Milwaukee County v. White Co. The equity jurisdiction being founded on avoidance of the risk of loss resulting from the threatened prosecution of multiple claims, the risk must be appraised in the light of the circumstances as they are in good faith alleged and shown to exist at the time when the suit was brought. Clark v. Wooster, U. Lathrop, U. In this case, as will presently be noted, the relations of decedent to each of the. See New Jersey v. Pennsylvania, U. Martin, U.
Common-Law Marriage
Thayer-Martin, N. Matter of Trowbridge, N.
In addition, the facts most essential to establishing that attitude and relationship of person to place which constitute domicile were in this case obscured by numerous self-serving statements of decedent as to his domicile which, because made for the purpose of avoiding liability for state income and personal property taxes levied on the basis of domicile, tended to conceal, rather than reveal, the true relationship in this case.
Taken as a whole, the case is exceptional in its circumstances and in the principles of law applicable to them, all uniting to impose a risk of loss upon the state lawfully entitled to collect the tax. We think that the Special Master's finding of jeopardy is sustained, that a justiciable "case" between the states is presented, and that a cause of action cognizable in equity is alleged and proved. The fact that no relief by way of injunction is sought or is recommended by the Special Master does not militate against this conclusion. While, in most causes in equity, the principal relief sought is that afforded by injunction, there are others in which the irreparable injury which is the indispensable basis for the exercise of equity powers is prevented by a mere adjudication of rights which is binding on the parties.
T his has long been the settled practice of this Court in cases of boundary disputes between states. Louisiana v. Tennessee, U. South Carolina, U. Texas, U. Wisconsin, U. Delaware, U. In the case of bills of peace, bills of interpleader, and bills in the nature of interpleader, the gist of the relief sought is the avoidance of the burden of unnecessary litigation or the risk of loss by the establishment of multiple liability when only a single obligation is owing.
These risks are avoided by adjudication in a single litigation binding on the parties. While courts of equity in such suits may and frequently do give incidental relief by injunction to secure the full benefits of the adjudication and to terminate the litigation in a single suit, they are not bound to do so, and their adjudication of the conflicting claims is not any the less effective as res judicata because not supplemented by injunction.
We do not doubt that, when the equity powers of the Court have been invoked, it has power, in its discretion, to give such incidental relief by way of injunction as will make its determination the effective means of avoiding risk of loss to any of the parties by reason of the asserted multiple tax liability. But the plenary effect of its decision as res judicata, and considerations of convenience in the levying of the tax by the usual state procedure, make it unnecessary and undesirable that the Court should proceed beyond adjudication.
The fact that the Court, for reasons of policy or convenience, does not exercise the power which it possesses and which has been traditionally exercised in like cases between private suitors does not deprive the suit of its character as a case or controversy cognizable by the Court in an original suit. Swope, U. Wallace, supra. The Special Master took voluminous testimony in each of the four states, recording every available fact having any bearing on the issue of decedent's domicile.
After an exhaustive study of the evidence, the Special Master has prepared elaborate subsidiary findings in which he has stated what he considers to be the essential facts of decedent's life which, taken together, were the controlling factors in his arriving at the conclusion that decedent, at the time of his death, was domiciled in the Massachusetts. In considering and weighing the evidence, the Special Master concluded that there was no local law peculiar to any of the states with respect to the essential fact elements which go to establish domicile, and that the rule in each of the states defining domicile was substantially that of the common law.
Texas, since Green in the earlier part of his life lived for a large part of his time in that state and frequently proclaimed it to be his legal residence, places great emphasis on the common law rule that, when one has once acquired a domicile in one place, he does not lose it by mere residence elsewhere without the intention to make the new place of residence a domicile in the sense of a permanent home.
Does Florida recognize common law marriage? | Schipani and Norman, P.A.
The Special Master, while not completely adopting either of the tests proposed, nevertheless finds that both support his conclusion. We accept the Special Master's findings of fact and his conclusion that the decedent, at the time of his death, was domiciled in Massachusetts. As the Master has found and stated in great detail the circumstances of decedent's life which lead to that conclusion, and has made them available in his report, we find it unnecessary to do more than state the salient facts which are typical of and supported by many others, and which support his ultimate conclusion.
Edward Green was born in England August 22, , and was in his sixty-eighth year at the time of his death, June 8, , at Lake Placid, New York, where he was temporarily sojourning for reasons of health. He was the son of Hetty Green, a well known figure in the financial world, who was born in New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Her forebears had resided in that vicinity since the seventeenth century, and Green and his sister Mrs. Wilks inherited from her one hundred and thirty acres of land in the town of Dartmouth, which had been the family home and had been property of the family for some two hundred years. The foundation of the family fortune had been laid in the whaling industry, centering at New Bedford. His tastes were not artistic or literary; he had a deep interest in scientific study and experimentation, especially in the fields of astronomy, geology, electricity, photography, radio, and aviation.
He was fond of the sea and of yachting, and, until a serious illness in , followed by permanent impairment of his health, he was interested in athletics and outdoor life. After that time, he became especially interested in collecting stamps, coins, currency, and jewels, to which he devoted much attention. He had no interest in fashionable or social life, but preferred, as he stated, associating with the common man or "the man in the street.
In , when he was twenty-four years old, his mother sent him to Texas to foreclose a mortgage on a short line of railroad located there, later known as the Texas Midland Railroad. As the result of the foreclosure, she acquired the railroad, and, for the larger part of Green's time until , he remained in Texas for the purpose of looking after the management of the road. In that year, he returned to live in New York at the urgent request of his mother, who, because of failing health, desired his assistance in the management of her business affairs.
From until , Green customarily made two trips a year to Texas, one to attend the annual meeting of the railroad and the other to inspect the road, and in alternate years to vote in Terrell, Texas, in state and municipal elections. From to , he made but one annual visit, in the spring of each year. After , he spent only two or three days on each visit to Texas, in Terrell and its vicinity. In the years to , he visited Marlin, Texas, where he remained for about a month each. In , the railroad was sold. After the agreement for sale was made in , he made no other visit to Dallas or Terrell, and his only visit to Texas was in , for treatment at a clinic in Marlin.
During the period of his residence in Texas, decedent was a bachelor, and maintained domestic establishments at various places. He at first lived in a hotel. About , he maintained a bachelor apartment at Terrell. For a time, he also kept rooms at a hotel in Dallas, and then, about or , leased an apartment in that city. Later he purchased a building there which he remodelled and occupied as a dwelling until , when the building was sold.