Brooke v. City of Norfolk
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue (N.C. Ct. App. 2016)
- North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust (Supreme Court of the United States 2019)
- Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue (N.C. 2018)
- Estate of Newton (Cal. 1950)
- Greenough v. Tax Assessors of Newport (Supreme Court of the United States 1947)
- Commonwealth v. Appalachian Electric Power Co. (Va. 1932)
- McCulloch v. Franchise Tax Board (Cal. 1964)
- Blaustein v. State Tax Commission (Md. 1939)
- Mayor of Baltimore v. Gibbs (Md. 1934)
- Rowe v. Braden, Tax Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 1932)
- Harrison v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation (Mass. 1930)
- Trust Co. of Norfolk v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1928)
- Wood v. Ford (Fla. 1941)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart (Pa. 1940)
- Curry v. McCanless (Supreme Court of the United States 1939)
- Rowe v. Braden (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County 1932)
- Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Virginia (Supreme Court of the United States 1929)
- Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland (Supreme Court of the United States 1954)
- Miller Bros. v. Maryland (Supreme Court of the United States 1954)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart (Chester County Court of Common Pleas 1939)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
The petitioner applied in the local form of proceeding for the correction of two assessments for taxation alleged to be erroneous and contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of first instance, The Corporation Court of the City of Norfolk, upheld both assessments as valid, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia rejected a petition for a writ of error on the ground that the judgment below was plainly right. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 274 U. S. 734.
The assessments complained of were for City and State taxes upon the corpus of a trust fund created by the will of a citizen of Maryland resident in Baltimore at the time of her death. This will bequeathed .to the Safe Deposit and Trust Company of- Baltimore eighty thousand dollars in trust to pay the income to the petitioner for life, then to her daughters for their lives, and, upon the death of the last survivor, to divide the principal between the descendants then living of the daughters per stirpes. The will was proved in Maryland and in 1014 was admitted to probate in the Corporation Court of Norfolk as a foreign will. The property held in trust has remained in Maryland and no part of it is or ever has been in Virginia.
The petitioner has paid’ without question a tax upon the income received by her. But the doctrine contended for now is that the petitioner .is chargeable as if she owned the whole. No doubt in the- case of tangible prop *29 erty lying within the State and subject to a paramount lien for taxes, the occupant actually using it may be made personally liable. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 218 U. S. 551, 562. Carstairs v. Cochran, 193 U. S. 10, 16. But here the property is not within the State, does not belong to the petitioner and is not within her possession .or control., The assessment is a bare proposition to make the petitioner pay upon an interest to which she'is a stranger. This cannot be done. See Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Doughton, 272 U. S. 567, 575.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.