The following is an article of a treaty concluded between the
King of Wurtemberg and the United States in 1844, 8 Stat. 588
"The citizens or subjects of each of the contracting parties
shall have power to dispose of their personal property within the
states of the other by testament, donation, or otherwise, and their
heirs, legatees, and donees, being citizens or subjects of the
other contracting party, shall succeed to their said personal
property and may take possession thereof, either by themselves, or
by others acting for them, and dispose of the same at their
pleasure, paying such duties only as the inhabitants of the country
where said property lies shall be liable to pay in like cases."
This article does not include the case of a citizen of the
United States dying at home and disposing of property within the
state of which he was a citizen and in which he died.
Consequently, where the State of Louisiana claimed, under a
statute, a tax of ten percent on the amount of certain legacies
left by one of her citizens to certain subjects of the King of
Wurtemberg, the statute was not in conflict with the treaty and the
claim must be allowed.
This case involved the construction of an article of a treaty
between the United States and the Kingdom of Wurtemberg,
concluded
Page 64 U. S. 446
on the 10th of April, 1844, 8 Stat. 588. The article is quoted
in the syllabus, and need not be repeated. It was admitted upon the
record that Fink was a naturalized citizen of the United States at
the time of his death and residing in the City of New Orleans; also
that the legatees reside in the Kingdom of Wurtemberg, and are
subjects of the King of Wurtemberg.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana decided in favor of the validity
of the tax, and the legatees brought the case up to this Court.
MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendant in error made opposition to the account filed in
the settlement of the succession of John David Fink, deceased, in
the Second District Court of New Orleans, because the executor did
not place on the tableau ten percent upon the amounts respectively
allowed to certain legatees, who are subjects of the King of
Wurtemberg. By a statute of Louisiana it is provided that
"Each and every person, not being domiciliated in this state and
not being a citizen of any other state or territory in the Union,
who shall be entitled, whether as heirs, legatee, or donee, to the
whole or any part of the succession of a person deceased, whether
such person shall have died in this state, or elsewhere, shall pay
a tax of ten percent on all sums, or on the value of all property
which he may have actually received from said succession, or so
much thereof as is situated in this state, after deducting all
debts due by the succession."
The claim of the State of Louisiana was resisted in the district
court on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions of the
third article of the convention between the United States of
America and his Majesty the King of Wurtemberg, of the 10th April,
1844. That article is that
"The citizens or subjects of each of the contracting parties
shall have power to dispose of their personal property within the
states of the other, by testament, donation, or otherwise, and
Page 64 U. S. 447
their heirs, legatees, and donees, being citizens or subjects of
the other contracting party, shall succeed to their said personal
property and may take possession thereof, either by themselves or
by others acting for them, and dispose of the same at their
pleasure, paying such duties only as the inhabitants of the country
where the said property lies shall be liable to pay in like
cases."
This Court, in
Mager v.
Grima, 8 How. 490, decided that the act of the
Legislature of Louisiana was nothing more than the exercise of the
power which every state or sovereignty possesses of regulating the
manner and terms upon which property, real and personal, within its
dominion may be transmitted by last will and testament, or by
inheritance, and of prescribing who shall and who shall not be
capable of taking it. The case before the district court in
Louisiana concerned the distribution of the succession of a citizen
of that state and of property situated there. The act of the
legislature under review does not make any discrimination between
citizens of the state and aliens in the same circumstances. A
citizen of Louisiana domiciliated abroad is subject to this tax.
State v. Poydras, 9 La.Ann. 165; therefore, if this
article of the treaty comprised the succession of a citizen of
Louisiana, the complaint of the foreign legatees would not be
justified. They are subject to "only such duties as are exacted
from citizens of Louisiana under the same circumstances." But we
concur with the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the opinion that the
treaty does not regulate the testamentary dispositions of citizens
or subjects of the contracting Powers in reference to property
within the country of their origin or citizenship. The cause of the
treaty was that the citizens and subjects of each of the
contracting powers were or might be subject to onerous taxes upon
property possessed by them within the states of the other by reason
of their alienage, and its purpose was to enable such persons to
dispose of their property, paying such duties only as the
inhabitants of the country where the property lies pay under like
conditions. The case of a citizen or subject of the respective
countries residing at home and disposing of property there in favor
of a citizen or subject of the other was not in
Page 64 U. S. 448
the contemplation of the contracting powers, and is not embraced
in this article of the treaty. This view of the treaty disposes of
this cause upon the grounds on which it was determined in the
Supreme Court of Louisiana. It has been suggested in the argument
of this case that the government of the United States is
incompetent to regulate testamentary dispositions or laws of
inheritance of foreigners, in reference to property within the
states.
The question is one of great magnitude, but it is not important
in the decision of this cause, and we consequently abstain from
entering upon its consideration.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana is
affirmed.
