Legal Opinion

Dorrance v. Thayer-Martin

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided May 10, 1934PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Since the filing of the earlier conclusions in this matter (Inre Dorrance, 115 N.J. Eq. 268; 170 Atl. Rep. 601), opposing counsel have come to agreement as to certain of the items then in process of negotiation — namely that the so-called "compromise tax" (assessed by way of compromise and commutation for present payment, in respect of legacies in expectancy which are contingent and defeasible), should be eliminated from the assessment under review, inasmuch as under the terms of the statute, tax on these transfers is not assessable until the occurrence of the contingencies, except by…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In Re DorranceNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1934

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. TEXAS v. FLORIDA Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  2. Hill v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. Worcester County Trust Co. v. RileySupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  4. Dorrance's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. In Re Estate of GillmoreNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1968

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API