Bonaparte v. Tax Court

Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U.S. 592 (1882)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: January 16, 1882
Docket: No. 172
Judges: Waite
Citations: 104 U.S. 59226 L. Ed. 8451881 U.S. LEXIS 2052

Cited by 51 11 descriptions by later courts Original from court

Headnotes

The Constitution does not prohibit a State from including in the taxable property of her citizens so much of the registered public debt of another State ■ as they respectively hold, although the debtor State may exempt it' from taxation or actually tax it.

Summary

: Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland. Mrs. Elizabeth Patterson, a resident of Baltimore, Md., returned, in accordance with’ the law of that State,- to the proper-board' of assessors, the following property: City of New York stock, six per cent;. City of New York stock, seven per 'cent; County of New York stock, seven per cent; -County of New York stock, six per-cent; -State-of New-York stock, six .per ,-cent; State of -Pennsylvania stock, six per cent; State ■of: Ohio stock, six per cent-; and City of Philadelphia stock, six per cent. She stated, their. several amounts, and claimed their, exemption from taxation because they were óf a public ••character, and, except a' portion- of the City of Philadelphia stock, were exempt from taxation by the laws of the States respectively authorizing their issue, while that portion had always been subjected by Pennsylvania to a tax which she had paid to that State. They were of the character -known as “ registered ; i. e., transferable only on the public record books of the States and municipalities issuing them, and the interest was paid only at places provided by the laws of those ■States, and beyond the boundaries of Maryland. ■ The board of control and review by which this return was- revised, disallowed her claim for exemption. She thereupon filed a petition in the Baltimore City Court, praying that the above-described property should be stricken from the lists. The order of the court granting the relief prayed was reversed by the Court of Appeals, whereupon she sued out this writ of error. She died during its pendency, and her executor was substituted in her stead.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chief' Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

The question we are asked to decide' in this case is ^whether the registered public debt of one State, exempt from taxation by the debtor: State, or actually taxed there, is taxable by another State when owned by a resident of the latter State. We know of no provision of the Constitution of the United States which prohibits such taxation. It is conceded that no' obligation of the contract' of the‘debtor State is impaired. The only agreement as to taxation was that the debt should ■not be taxed by the State which created it, It is insisted, however, that the immunity asked for arises from art. 4, sect. 1, of the Constitution, which provides that full faith and' credit shall be given in each State to the public acts of every other State, We are unable to give such an effect to this provision. No State can legislate except with reference to its own jurisdiction. One State eannot exempt property from taxation in another. Each State is independent of all the others in this particular. We are referred to no statute of the debtor State which attempts to separate the situs of. the debt from the person of the owner, even if that is within the -scope of the legislative power of the State. The debt was registered ; but that did not prevent it from following the person of its owner. The debt still remained a chose in action, with all the incidents which pertain to that species of property. It was “ movable ” like other debts, and had none of the attributes of “immovability.” The owner may be compelled to go to the debtor State to get what is owing *595 to him ; but that does not affect his citizenship or his ,dbmicilé. The debtor State is in no respect his sovereign, neither has it any of; the attributes of sovereignty as to. the debt it owes, except sbch as belong "to it as a debtor, v All the obligations which rest on the' holder of thé debt as a resident of the State in which he dwells still remain,, and as a member of society he must contribute his just share towards supporting' the; government whose'protection he claims and to whose control he has submitted himself.

It is tr,ue, if a State could protect its securities from taxation everywhere, it might succeed in! borrowing mpney at reduced interest; but, inasmuch as it cannot- secure such exemption outside of its own jurisdiction, it is compelled to go into the market as a borrower, subject to the same disabilities in this .particular ' as, individuals. While the Constitution of the United States plight have been so framed as to afford' relief against such a disability, it has not been, and the. States are •left free to extend the comity which is sought, or not, as they please. . ...

Taxation of the debt within the debtor State does not chauge the legal situs of the debt' for any other purpose than that of the tax which is imposed. Neither does exemption from taxation.

As the only Federal question involved was decided right in the court below, we cannot look into the other errors which have been assigned. Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590 .

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 11 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(holding that under the Full Faith and Credit clause, “[n]o state can legislate except with reference to its own jurisdiction”)

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 730 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2013)
(holding that exclusion from taxation of certain debt purchases in one state could not control the taxation of individuals residing in another state because “[n]o State can legislate except with reference to its own jurisdiction”)

Vectren Infrastructure Servs. Corp v. Dep't of Treasury, No. 163742 (Mich. July 31, 2023)
(“No State can legislate except with reference to its own jurisdiction.... Each State is independent of all the others in this particular”)

BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)
(quoted in BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 571, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996))

Coca-Cola Co. v. Harmar Bottling Co., 218 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2006)
(beyond its borders, a debtor State "is compelled to go into the market as a borrower, subject to the same disabilities in this particular as individuals," and has none "of the attributes of sovereignty as to the debt it owes")

Dep't of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (2008)

Cited by 51 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Shaper v. Tracy647 N.E.2d 550 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Bellows Falls Power Co. v. Commonwealth109 N.E. 891 (Mass. 1915)
Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis553 U.S. 328 (2008)
Davis v. Department of Revenue of the Finance & Administration Cabinet197 S.W.3d 557 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006)
Davis v. DEPT. REV. OF FIN. & ADMIN. CAB.197 S.W.3d 557 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006)
Westwind Acquisition Co. LLC v. Universal Weather and Aviation, Inc.668 F. Supp. 2d 749 (E.D. Va. 2009)

Most recent

Aylos Freesites Ltd, Aylos Group Ltd v. Utah Division of Consumer Protection, Katie Hass, in her official capacity as Director of the Utah Division of Consumer Protection, Utah Department of Commerce, Margaret Busse, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Utah Department of CommerceNo. 2:26-cv-00340 (D. Utah Sept. 24, 2026)
Vectren Infrastructure Services Corp v. Department of TreasuryNo. 163742 (Mich. July 31, 2023)
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co600 U.S. 122 (2023)
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross598 U.S. 356 (2023)
Karen Scalin v. Societe Nationale SNCF SA8 F.4th 509 (7th Cir. 2021)
Carlton Gunn v. Continental Casualty Company968 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2020)

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.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590 (1875)	266

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list