Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
DYER v. CITY OF MELROSE, 1910 — 215 U.S. 594 · caselaw · US
Tax
DYER v. CITY OF MELROSE
215 U.S. 594·Supreme Court of the United States·1910
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
DYER v. CITY OF MELROSE.
ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OP THE STATE OE MASSACHUSETTS.
No. 93.
Argued January 20, 1910.
Decided January 24, 1910.
A judgment of the state court sustaining a tax on property of an officer of the United States Navy affirmed on the authority of previous cases.
197 Massachusetts, 99, affirmed.
Mr. Chester M. Pratt for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Claude L. Allen for defendant in error.
As stated in the brief of defendant in error:
“This case presents the single question whether money which the plaintiff in error has received as salary or emoluments from the Federal Government, after being so received and deposited in national banks, subject to check, is exempt from taxation by local authorities in Massachusetts, on the principle that a State cannot lay a tax upon an office under the Government of .the United States, nor upon.any means or instruments used solely for the maintenance of the Federal Government or the performance of any of its functions.”
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Judgment affirmed with, costs. Hibernia Savings Society v. San Francisco, 200 U. S. 310; McIntosh v. Aubrey, 185 U. S. 122; Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5; case below, Dyer v. Melrose, 197 Massachusetts, 99.