Dorrance v. Thayer-Martin
ETHEL M. DORRANCE, GEORGE MORRIS DORRANCE, M. D., ARTHUR C. DORRANCE AND CAMDEN SAFE DEPOSIT AND TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF JOHN T. DORRANCE, PROSECUTORS v. J. H. THAYER-MARTIN, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Subsequent history: aff'd sub nom. Hill v. Martin, 296 U.S. 393 (1935). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari, in this case, brings up for review a final decree of the New Jersey Prerogative Court, dated May 11th, 1934, affirming a transfer inheritance tax assessment, made by J. H. Thayer-Martin, state tax commissioner of the State of New Jersey, in the matter of the estate of John T. Dorranee, deceased, as made on October 10th, 1932, and amounting to $12,247,333.52.
We have carefully studied and considered the voluminous records, proofs and briefs herein submitted. The opinions of Buchanan, Vice-Ordinary, in this matter when it came up before him for determination are reported in 115 N. J. Eq. 268; 170 Atl. Rep. 601 , and 116 N. J. Eq. 204; 172 Atl. Rep. 503 . They disclose a very careful analysis and consideration of the proofs as well as the law applicable thereto; they are comprehensive, clear, sound and correct.
*169 We are of the firm opinion that there has been nothing further presented to this court which would merit or justify a disturbance of the results reached by the learned vice-ordinary and with which we are in thorough accord.
Accordingly the decree brought up for review is sustained and the writ of certiorari is dismissed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court2
- Federal District Courts3
- State Highest Courts2
- State Appellate Courts3
- State Attorney General Opinions2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.