Duus v. Brown/Opinion of the Court
John Peterson, a native of Sweden, but a naturalized citizen of the United States and a resident of Iowa, there died unmarried and intestate. His property in the state passed under the laws of Iowa to his heirs who were his nephews and nieces or their representatives, some of whom were naturalized citizens of the United States residing in states other than Iowa and the remainder were natives and citizens of the Kingdom of Sweden and there resided. The property in Iowa was administered under the laws of that state and the administrator paid upon the portion of the estate accruing to the nonresident alien heirs the death duties provided by the law of Iowa which were higher than those provided by that law upon the portion accruing to the resident heirs. Section 1467, 1907 Supplement to the Code of Iowa. This controversy arose from a contest over the right of the state to make that charge and the duty of the administrator to pay it, the contention being that the duties in so far as they discriminated against the nonresident alien heirs were void because in conflict with a treaty between the United States and the King of Sweden. Treaty of April 3, 1783, 8 Stat. 60, renewed by article 12 of the Treatry of September 4, 1816, 8 Stat. 240, and revived by article 17 of the Treaty of July 4, 1827, 8 Stat. 354. The case is here to review the judgment of the court below holding that contention to be unsound. In re Peterson's Estate, 168 Iowa, 511, 151 N. W. 66, L. R. A. 1916A, 469.

Two clauses of the treaty are relied upon: Article 6, which it is asserted directly prohibited the discriminating charge, and article 2, which by the favored nation clause accomplished a like result. Article 6 is in the margin  and from its text it plainly appears that it embraces only citizens or subjects of Sweden and their property in Iowa and therefore as we have just pointed out in Petersen v. Iowa, 245 U.S. 170, 38 Sup. Ct. 109, 62 L. Ed. --, has no relation whatever to the right of the state to deal by death duties with its own citizens and their property within the state. And from the same case it also appears that the favored nation clause has also no application, since that clause in the treaty relied upon, as was the case in the Treaty of Denmark which came under consideration in the previous case is applicable only 'in respect to commerce and navigation.'

For the reasons stated in the Petersen Case and in this, it follows that the judgment must be and it is

Affirmed. 

Notes