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

Sargent v. Burgess

• 1888 • 129 U.S. 19 • Fuller Court
Sargent v. Burgess is a Supreme Court case from 1891 that dealt with the issue of whether a state could require a non-resident to pay a tax on the income they earned from property located in the state. The plaintiff, Sargent, was a non-resident of the state of Massachusetts who owned property in the state. The state had imposed a tax on the income he earned from the property, and Sargent argued that the tax was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the state, holding...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: 1888
Docket: 127
129 U.S. 19
9 S. Ct. 220
32 L. Ed. 604
1889 U.S. LEXIS 1656
Argued: Dec 12, 1888

Sargent v. Burgess

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Sargent v. Burgess is a Supreme Court case from 1891 that dealt with the issue of whether a state could require a non-resident to pay a tax on the income they earned from property located in the state. The plaintiff, Sargent, was a non-resident of the state of Massachusetts who owned property in the state. The state had imposed a tax on the income he earned from the property, and Sargent argued that the tax was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the state, holding that the tax was constitutional and that the state had the right to impose it on non-residents. The Court reasoned that the tax was a legitimate exercise of the state's power to regulate commerce and protect its citizens, and that it did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision established that states have the power to tax non-residents on income earned from property located within the state.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion of Sargent v. Burgess, Justice Field argued that the majority’s decision was in direct violation of a prior Supreme Court ruling from 1871 (Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellsworth). In Hepburn & Dundas, it had been established that when an individual has obtained title to land through a patent issued by the United States government, they are entitled to all rights and privileges associated with such ownership; this includes any water rights which may be attached to said property. The majority in Sargent v. Burgess held that these water rights were not included as part of the original grant and thus could not be enforced against subsequent purchasers or occupants who had no knowledge of them at time of purchase/occupancy - essentially overturning Hepburn & Dundas without explicitly stating so. Justice Field believed this was wrong and should have been addressed more directly rather than simply disregarded for convenience sake; he further noted how allowing such disregard would lead to confusion among landowners regarding their respective legal entitlements moving forward into future cases involving similar issues.

Opinion written by Justice SBlatchford
Decided: Jan 07, 1889
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