Dana v. Dana

Background

A dispute arose after the will of Edith L. Dana passed interests in several trusts and company shares, some tied to real estate outside Massachusetts. The Massachusetts probate court and the state Supreme Judicial Court held that those interests were subject to the state’s succession tax under the Massachusetts statutes. The heirs then sought review in the United States Supreme Court by a writ of error, arguing the tax unlawfully reached property outside Massachusetts and violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protection.

Reasoning

The Court addressed a procedural question: whether this matter could be brought here by writ of error. A 1916 amendment to the federal Judicial Code narrowed writs of error so they apply only when the validity of a state statute or a state authority’s action is directly challenged as repugnant to federal law. The record and the state court’s opinion did not dispute the validity of the Massachusetts statute or any state authority. The Court pointed to earlier decisions construing that amendment and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case by writ of error.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error for want of jurisdiction, the Massachusetts tax assessment remains in place for these estate interests. The Court did not decide the underlying constitutional claim about out-of-state property; it dismissed the case on procedural grounds. Going forward, similar challenges must directly contest a state law’s or authority’s validity or be brought to this Court by certiorari rather than by writ of error.