Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Chanler v. Kelsey, Comptroller Of The State Of New York

• 1906 • 205 U.S. 466 • Fuller Court
In the 1906 case of Chanler v. Kelsey, Comptroller of the State of New York, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over inheritance tax law in New York state. The plaintiff, William Astor Chanler, was an heir to John Jacob Astor III's estate and contested that he should not be taxed on his inherited property because it had been transferred to him before death by means of a trust fund created by Mr. Astor in 1873 - prior to enactment of any inheritance tax laws in New York (1892). However,...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1906
Docket: 240
205 U.S. 466
27 S. Ct. 550
51 L. Ed. 882
1907 U.S. LEXIS 1381
Argued: Mar 14, 1907

Chanler v. Kelsey, Comptroller Of The State Of New York

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1906 case of Chanler v. Kelsey, Comptroller of the State of New York, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over inheritance tax law in New York state. The plaintiff, William Astor Chanler, was an heir to John Jacob Astor III's estate and contested that he should not be taxed on his inherited property because it had been transferred to him before death by means of a trust fund created by Mr. Astor in 1873 - prior to enactment of any inheritance tax laws in New York (1892). However, upon Mr. Astor’s death in 1890, control over this trust passed onto Chanler which led authorities to levy taxes as per new laws enacted after creation of said trust but before its transferal due to demise. The court ruled against Chanler stating that although no specific provision existed for such situations when these laws were first introduced; subsequent amendments clarified their applicability retrospectively covering all transfers made within contemplation or intended evasion thereof regardless if they occurred pre-enactment or post-enactment respectively.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Chanler v. Kelsey, Comptroller of the State of New York, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision that a tax on legacies and distributive shares was constitutional. He argued that this type of taxation was not within Congress' power to impose direct taxes apportioned among states according to their population as outlined in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. Instead, he believed it fell under indirect taxation which is subject to uniformity across all states per Article I, Section 8. Furthermore, he contended that such a tax violated citizens' right to transfer property upon death without governmental interference - an inherent privilege protected by law from arbitrary infringement or suppression by government authority. Therefore, Justice Harlan concluded that this form of inheritance tax was unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Opinion written by Justice WRDay
Decided: Apr 15, 1907
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms