This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Texas v New Jersey | |
---|---|
Argued November 9, 1964 Decided February 1, 1965 | |
Full case name | Texas v. New Jersey et al. |
Citations | 380 U.S. 518 (more) 85 S. Ct. 1136; 14 L. Ed. 2d 49 |
Case history | |
Prior | 379 U.S. 674 (1965) |
Holding | |
Jurisdiction to escheat abandoned intangible personal property lies in the State of the creditor's last known address on the debtor's books and records or, absent such address or an escheat law, in the State of corporate domicile - but subject to later escheat to the former State if it proves such an address to be within its borders and provides for escheat of such property. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Black, joined by Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, White, Goldberg |
Dissent | Stewart |
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.