Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Baldwin v. Maryland

179 U.S. 220

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1900-12-03
Topic
general

Me. Justice Beewee, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. The controversy in the case reported in 85 Maryland, 145, was one between the estate of the ward and the State of Maryland. In that case the right of the State to compel a payment by the estate of the ward of taxes levied thereon for the years 1893 and 1894 was settled. The personality of the litigants, the form of the action, do not disturb the substantial fact that the controversy was between the estate of the ward and the State of Maryland, and that that controversy was determined in favor of the State.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Baldwin v. Maryland. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
17 opinions
BALDWINv. MARYLAND,179 U.S. 220(1900)
21 S.Ct. 105
BALDWINv. MARYLAND.
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
No. 113.
Argued November 16, 1900.
Decided December 3, 1900.
The controversy between the State of Maryland and the estate of the ward having been finally settled in favor of the State, and the only Federal question presented in this case having been determined in favor of the State, this court declines to consider the purely local question whether a judgment binding the estate binds also the sureties on the guardian's bond.
THE facts are these: Prior to 1880 certain residents of
Maryland died, leaving property to Columbus C. Baldwin, a minor.
After the settlement of the estates of the decedents a guardian
of the estate of said minor was appointed by the Orphans' Court
of Washington County, Maryland. In consequence of the death of
the guardian succeeding guardians were appointed, and in August,
1891, William Woodward Baldwin was duly appointed a guardian of
the estate of such minor, and gave bond to perform his duty
according to law. The present plaintiffs in error were sureties
on that bond. During the years of the guardianship the Register
of Wills of Washington County made annual returns to the county
commissioners of the property of estates unsettled, and among
those that of the estate of this minor, and taxes were levied
thereon in accordance with law and were
Page 221
duly paid up to the year 1893. The taxes for 1893 and 1894 being
unpaid, the guardian filed a bill in the Circuit Court for
Washington County to restrain their collection. The basis of his
contention was that both he and the ward were non-residents of
Maryland, and that the estate of the ward had been taken by him
outside of the State. The Circuit Court decided against him, and
denied the injunction. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals of the State.85 Md. 145. An attempt was made to
review that judgment in this court, but the writ of error was
dismissed (168 U.S. 705) on the ground that no Federal question
had been distinctly preserved, or, if preserved, that there was a
non-Federal question which was decisive of the case. Thereafter,
the taxes being still unpaid, and the estate still unsettled, and
the same statement presented by the Register of Wills to the
county commissioners in respect to the taxes of 1895, this action
was commenced to recover from the bondsmen the amount of the
taxes for the years 1893, 1894 and 1895. Judgment was rendered
against them in the trial court, and affirmed by the Court of
Appeals of the State, (89 Md. 587,) to reverse which
judgment this writ of error has been sued out.
Mr. Charles A. Bostonfor plaintiffs in error.Mr. Henry Kyd Douglasfor defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The controversy in the case reported in85 Md. 145, was one between the estate of the ward and the State of Maryland. In that case the right of the State to compel a payment by the estate of the ward of taxes levied thereon for the years 1893 and 1894 was settled. The personality of the litigants, the form of the action, do not disturb the substantial fact that the controversy was between the estate of the ward and the State of Maryland, and that that controversy was determined in favor of the State. This court declining to disturb the final judgmentPage 222of the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, that controversy is settled and beyond further litigation. The matter has becomeres judicatabetween the estate and the State. There is no pretence that the taxes of 1895 stand in any other condition as to matter of fact than the taxes of 1893 and 1894, which were in terms included within the litigation settled by the decision referred to. The ruling therefore, as to the taxes for 1895 comes within the force of that decision, and is determined by the conclusion in respect to the taxes of 1893 and 1894.Johnson Co. v.Wharton,152 U.S. 252;Last Chance MiningCo. v.Tyler Mining Co.,157 U.S. 683;New Orleansv.Citizens' Bank,167 U.S. 371.

The controversy, therefore, between the State of Maryland and the estate of the ward having been finally settled in favor of the State, and the only Federal question presented in this case being that already determined as to the right of the State to enforce a tax upon the property of the ward, it is unnecessary to consider the purely local question as to whether a judgment binding the estate binds also the sureties on the guardian's bond.Murdockv.Memphis, 20 Wall. 590;Myrickv.Thompson,99 U.S. 291,297;Swopev.Leffingwell,105 U.S. 3.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland isAffirmed.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM dissented.Page 223