State v. Anderson
Citations
- 137 F. 858
- 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4215
Syllabus
<p>1. Bankruptcy—Claims—Disallowance—Appeal.</p> <p>Where ¿ state filed a claim against a bankrupt corporation for an alleged franchise tax, and more than $500 of such claim was disallowed, the state was entitled to appeal from such disallowance, under Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 25a, 30 Stat. 553 [IX. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3432], authorizing appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals from a judgment allowing or rejecting a debt or claim of $500 or over.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Appeal and review in bankruptcy cases, see note to In re .. Eggert, 43 C. C. A. 9.]</p> <p>2. Same—Scope oe Review.</p> <p>Where the disallowance of a claim against a bankrupt’s estate was properly in the Circuit Court of Appeals by an appeal respecting the amount of the claim, taken as authorized by Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 25a, 30 Stat. 553 [IX. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3432], the appellant was entitled to present any question concerning the security or rank of the debt, as an incident thereof.</p> <p>3. Taxes—State Decisions—Eeeect on Federal Courts.</p> <p>A federal court of bankruptcy, in determining whether a state imposi- ■ tion is a tax, within Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 64a, 30 Stat. 563 [IX. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3447], requiring priority of payment thereof, will not be bound by the decisions of the state courts unless the state decisions have authoritatively expounded the substance of the question, and not merely given the name “tax” to an exaction which is not such.-</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—State laws as rules of decision in federal courts see notes-' to Wilson v. Perrin, 11 C. C. A. 71; Hill v. Hite, 29 C. C. A. 553.]</p> <p>4. - Same—State Statutes—Construction—Corporate Impositions.</p> <p>A state statute requiring all corporations incorporated under the laws of the state, with certain, specified exceptions, to pay an annual license fee or franchise fax of one-tenth of 1 per cent, of all amounts of capitaL stock issued and outstanding, etc., was not a tax on the corporat
Judges: Baker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Derby v. Worcester CountyFirst Circuit· 1900-04-20· cited 49×
- In re Rouse, Hazard & Co.Seventh Circuit· 1899-01-03· cited 49×
- Tallcott v. FriendSeventh Circuit· 1905-01-03· cited 28×
- In re the taxation of The United States Car Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1899-07-07· cited 22×
- Hancock v. Singer Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1898-11-14· cited 19×
- Cunningham v. German Ins. BankSixth Circuit· 1900-05-21· cited 15×
- State v. HeppenheimerSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1896-03-15· cited 5×
- In re OttS.D. Iowa· 1899-07-05· cited 5×
- In re Danville Rolling Mill Co.E.D. Pennsylvania· 1903-04-03· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.