Pennsylvania v. New York

Last updated
Pennsylvania v. New York
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 29, 1972
Decided June 19, 1972
Full case namePennsylvania v. New York, et al.
Citations407 U.S. 206 ( more )
92 S. Ct. 2075; 32 L. Ed. 2d 693; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 35
Case history
SubsequentDecree entered, 407 U.S. 206 (1972).
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Burger, Douglas, Stewart, White, Marshall
DissentPowell, joined by Blackmun, Rehnquist

Pennsylvania v. New York, was a case which were heard in 1972 before the U.S. Supreme Court. The initial filing was allowed at 407 U.S. 206 [1] and the final decision was ordered at 407 U.S. 223 (1972). [2]

Contents

When two states have a controversy between each other, the case is filed for original jurisdiction with the United States Supreme Court. This is one of the very limited circumstances where the court acts as original jurisdiction, e.g. a trial court. In all other cases the court acts as the highest level appellate court in the United States.

In this case, Western Union had issued money orders that were either never redeemed or erroneously underpaid (e.g. a money order for $500 paid as $300), and enough time had passed that the value of the money orders was considered unclaimed property. In such a case, unclaimed money order escheats to the state. The question of the case was, which state should get the money, the state where the money order was purchased, or the state where Western Union was incorporated? Pennsylvania argued for the former, stating that if it were the latter, then New York (where Western Union was then incorporated) would receive a financial windfall.

As is the practice in original jurisdiction cases, the Supreme Court had a special master hear the case and make a decision. The Special Master decided to rely on the logic of the previous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. New Jersey [3] . The court approved the decision of the Special Master.

The final decision ruled that if a money order is never redeemed or is under-redeemed, if Western Union does know who the purchaser or redeemer is, and a money order is never redeemed or is under-redeemed, the remaining money escheats to the state where that purchaser resides, subject to that state's rules for escheat of unclaimed money or property. However, if Western Union does not know who the purchaser or the person who redeemed it is, the money escheats to the state where Western Union is incorporated (e.g. New York at that time; it later reincorporated in Delaware).

Later Congressional Legislation

Congress would weigh in on the matter two years later by passing the Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act (also known as the Federal Disposition Act or FDA), which decreed (in line with Pennsylvania's arguments) that the state where the money order was purchased should be the state to which unclaimed proceeds escheat (as most people purchase these items in the state of their residence).

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

Escheat is a common law doctrine that transfers the real property of a person who has died without heirs to the crown or state. It serves to ensure that property is not left in "limbo" without recognized ownership. It originally applied to a number of situations where a legal interest in land was destroyed by operation of law, so that the ownership of the land reverted to the immediately superior feudal lord.

In common law legal systems original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a higher court has the power to review a lower court's decision.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.

Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property are categories of the common law of property which deals with personal property or chattel which has left the possession of its rightful owner without having directly entered the possession of another person. Property can be considered lost, mislaid or abandoned depending on the circumstances under which it is found by the next party who obtains its possession.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 2</span>

This is a list of cases reported in volume 2 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1791 to 1793. Case reports from other federal and state tribunals also appear in 2 U.S..

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 4</span>

This is a list of cases reported in volume 4 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1799 and 1800. Case reports from other tribunals also appear in 4 U.S..

Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. 603 (1813), was a United States Supreme Court case arising out of the acquisition of lands originally granted by the British King Charles II in 1649 to Lord Fairfax in the Northern Neck and westward.

Barrett v. United States, 169 U.S. 218 (1898), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that South Carolina had never effectively been subdivided into separate judicial districts. Therefore, it was held, a criminal defendant allegedly tried in one district for a crime committed in the other had in fact been permissibly been tried in a separate division of a single district.

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that the passing out of anti-war leaflets at the Lloyd Center in Portland, Oregon, was an infringement on property rights. This differed from Marsh v. Alabama (1946) and Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968) in that Marsh had the attributes of a municipality and Logan Valley related to picketing a particular store, while the current case, the distribution of leaflets, is unrelated to any activity in the property.

Texas v. New Jersey, 380 U.S. 518 (1965), is a United States Supreme Court decision handed down on February 1, 1965. Concerning the authority of the state to escheat, or take title to, unclaimed personal property, the Court was petitioned, under its power of original jurisdiction, to adjudicate a disagreement between three states, Texas, New Jersey, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, over which state had the jurisdiction to escheat intangible personal property, such as uncashed checks. Recognizing the lack of any extant constitutional or statutory formula to decide jurisdiction, the Warren Court accepted the case, assigning a Special Master to compile evidence and recommend a solution that the states could use for similar cases in the future. Adopting the Special Master's suggestions, the Court, in a decision authored by Justice Hugo Black, ruled that the authority to escheat intangible personal property lay with the state of the creditor's last known address, rather than the state of the debtor's incorporation or headquarters, a formula used in previous cases.

References

  1. ↑ Pennsylvania v. New York, 407 U.S. 206 (1972).
  2. ↑ Pennsylvania v. New York, 407 U.S. 223 (1972).
  3. ↑ Texas v. New Jersey , 379 U.S. 674 (1961).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.