| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Bicknell v. Comstock was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could tax the income of a non-resident. The case involved a dispute between the state of New York and a resident of Connecticut, William Bicknell. Bicknell had received income from a New York corporation and was being taxed by the state of New York. Bicknell argued that the state of New York had no right to tax his income since he was a non-resident. The Supreme Court held that the state of New York had the right to tax Bicknell's income. The Court reasoned that the power to tax is an inherent power of the state and that the state of New York had the right to tax the income of non-residents. The Court also noted that the power to tax is necessary for the state to raise revenue and that the state of New York had the right to impose taxes on non-residents in order to raise revenue. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of New York had the right to tax the income of non-residents. The Court reasoned that the power to tax is an inherent power of the state and that the state of New York had the right to tax the income of non-residents in order to raise revenue.
In Bicknell v. Comstock, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident of that state against another non-resident in which the cause of action arose out of events occurring outside the boundaries of that state. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did not exist and reversed the judgment below. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it would be unjust for two parties who were both citizens or subjects of foreign countries to have no remedy when one party wrongfully injured another while they were both within a particular State's borders. He argued further that if states could not exercise jurisdiction in these cases then there would be no way for them to protect their own citizens or those under their protection from injury inflicted by foreigners on their soil and thus deprive them of rights guaranteed by international law as well as common sense principles governing justice between nations.