Brooke v. City of Norfolk, 277 U.S. 27 (1928). · Go Syfert
Search
Brooke v. City of Norfolk, 277 U.S. 27 (1928). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
171 citation events (49 in the last 25 years) across 56 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue (ncctapp, 2016-07-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1928 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1928 1977 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue (3×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See 277 U.S. at 28 -29 , 48 S.Ct. at 422 , 72 L.Ed. at 768 .
cited Cited "see" First Federal Savings Bank & Trust v. Ryan
6th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Coffin Bros. & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U.S. 29 , 48 S.Ct. 422 , 72 L.Ed. 768 (1928).
cited Cited "see" First Federal Savings Bank and Trust v. Ryan
1st Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Coffin Bros. & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U.S. 29 , 48 S.Ct. 422 , 72 L.Ed. 768 (1928).
discussed Cited "see" Epps v. Cortese
E.D. Pa. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Coffin Bros. & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U.S. 29, 31 , 48 S.Ct. 422 , 72 L.Ed. 768 (1927); Phillips v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 283 U.S. 589 , 596-597, 51 S.Ct. 608 , 75 L.Ed. 1289 (1930); Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272 , 15 L.Ed. 372 (1856); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 ; 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BROOKE
v.
CITY OF NORFOLK Et Al.
229.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 23, 1928.
277 U.S. 27
Mr. Robert B. Tunstall, with whom flfrr. Nathaniel T. Oreen was on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. E. Warren Wall for respondents.
Holmes.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
Me. Justice Holmes

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.