Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

173 Mass. 375

Moody v. Shaw

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1899-05-19

Petition to the Probate Court, by the executor of the will of Rufus G. A. Sherman, late of Bangor in the State of Maine, for instructions as to the payment of a collateral inheritance tax under St. 1891, c. 425, and acts in amendment thereof and in addition thereto. A decree was entered that certain personal property belonging to the estate was subject to such tax, and the executor and the legatees under the will appealed to this court.

Relies on Clark v. Barnard · Gerling v. Baltimore Ohio R Co · Pennsylvania Railroad v. St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-05-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 1923

13 state decisions

601899190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Holmes, J.

¶1This case is disposed of by the recent decision

¶2in Greves v. Shaw, ante, 205, except so far as the Boston and Albany Railroad stock is concerned. That railroad company is a corporation formed by the consolidation of Massachusetts and New York corporations, and owning tracks in Massachusetts and New York. Much the greater part of the property and the more powerful of the consolidated corporations, being also the original bearer of the present corporate name, belonged to the former State, and, in view of the facts and the language of the consolidating statutes, if the corporation were to be attributed only to one State, that State would be Massachusetts. Pennsylvania Railroad v. St. Louis, Alton, & Terre Haute Railroad, 118 U. S. 290, 296. But it seems to us enough to say that so long as the rail*378road holds a Massachusetts charter, so long can Massachusetts prescribe the payment of this tax as a condition of the right to succeed to stock issued under that charter. It does not matter that there is also a New York charter, and that, as things are now, stock issued under one is also stock under the other. The fact that it is so is a privilege granted by the two States reciprocally. But whenever either State has an interest in distinguishing between the two franchises, it has a right to do so. See Ohio & Mississippi Railroad v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286, 297; Memphis & Charleston Railroad v. Alabama, 107 U. S. 581, 585; Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 451, 452; Nashua & Lowell Railroad v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 136 U. S. 356, 379, 380; Martin v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 151 U. S. 673, 677; St. Louis & San Francisco Railway v. James, 161 U. S. 545: Central Pacific Railroad v. California, 162 U. S. 91. The fact that all rights are represented by one certificate might possibly create difficulties as to apportionment where important fractions of the property were in different States, but it would not affect the principle. Quincy Railroad Bridge Co. v. Adams, 88 Ill. 615, 619 et seq. Ohio & Mississippi Railroad v. Weber, 96 Ill. 443.

¶3Decree affirmed.

/173/mass/375 · .json · Public domain