## Facts

- Dr. John T. Dorrance owned substantial intangible personal property.
- He lived with his family in Cinnaminson, New Jersey from 1911 to 1925 and continued to own and maintain that home through his death.
- In late 1925, he bought an estate in Radnor, Pennsylvania and moved his family there, citing advantages for his children.
- Evidence showed he repeatedly stated an intention to return to the Cinnaminson home, without fixing a return date.
- He kept significant civic ties to New Jersey, including church affiliation and political participation, and continued voting there.
- He executed multiple legal documents identifying New Jersey as his domicile, including a will declaring residence in Cinnaminson and directing probate in New Jersey under penalties for noncompliance.
- After his death (Sept. 21, 1930), New Jersey assessed a transfer inheritance tax on his intangibles on the theory he was domiciled in New Jersey.
- Pennsylvania also assessed inheritance tax on the same intangibles, and its courts upheld the assessment based on a finding of Pennsylvania domicile.
- The executors argued New Jersey was constitutionally required to treat the Pennsylvania domicile adjudication as conclusive and therefore could not tax the intangibles.

## Issues

1. Whether Dorrance’s domicile at death was New Jersey or Pennsylvania for purposes of New Jersey’s transfer inheritance tax on intangible personal property.
2. Whether a prior Pennsylvania determination of Pennsylvania domicile bound New Jersey under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, precluding New Jersey from independently determining domicile and taxing the intangibles.

## Decision

- The court sustained New Jersey’s transfer inheritance tax assessment on the decedent’s intangible personal property.
- The court found Dorrance’s domicile at death remained in New Jersey and that he had not acquired a Pennsylvania domicile.
- The court held New Jersey was not bound by Pennsylvania’s contrary domicile judgment because domicile was a jurisdictional fact for the foreign court’s tax decree and could be reexamined.
- The state’s highest appellate court affirmed the result by memorandum, without opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A prior domicile adjudication from another state is not necessarily conclusive when invoked to defeat a New Jersey tax.
- A forum may examine a sister-state judgment’s jurisdictional basis; if the foreign court lacked jurisdiction because the decedent was not domiciled there, the judgment is not binding under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
- Domicile does not change merely because a person takes up residence elsewhere if the person intends not to abandon the former home and intends to return, even if the time of return is indefinite.
- A new domicile requires (1) actual residence in the new place and (2) intent to make it a permanent home, with no present intent to leave.

## Conclusion

New Jersey upheld its inheritance tax on the decedent’s intangible property by finding that he retained a New Jersey domicile despite living in Pennsylvania, and it declined to treat Pennsylvania’s contrary domicile determination as binding because domicile was a jurisdictional fact open to collateral examination for full faith and credit purposes.


In re Dorrance’s Estate, 170 A. 601 (N.J. Prerog. Ct. 1934), aff’d mem. sub nom. Dorrance v. Thayer-Martin, 176 A. 902 (N.J. Ct. Err. & App. 1935)