Summary

Louis Brandeis Hill v. Martin Dorrance — Opinion of the Court

It is true that if the executors fail to pay the tax adjudged to be due, New Jersey must take further proceeding to compel the executors to discharge their obligation. This is so even if the executors do not avail themselves of heir existing right to appeal to the Court of Errors and Appeals, or if upon such appeal that court affirms the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Hill v. Martin Dorrance — Opinion of the Court

The power to 'reverse or affirm, in whole or in part' does not imply that the court may exercise administrative discretion. Such power is a common incident of the judicial review of taxation. As the administrative proceeding of assessing the tax had ended when the Supreme Court granted its writ of certiorari, we have no occasion, in this connection, to enquire whether it had not already ended when the appeal to the Prerogative Court was allowed.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Hill v. Martin Dorrance — Opinion of the Court

The plaintiffs contend that even if the action of the Supreme Court was judicial, the federal court had jurisdiction of this controversy because the judgment of the New Jersey courts was limited to a review of the assessment; that in order to collect the tax-to translate the assessment into an enforceable judgment the state officials must institute a new and independent action, namely either an action for debt in the name of the state or a statutory proceeding against the persons interested in the estate
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature