Pennsylvania v. New York
Encyclopedia
Pennsylvania v. New York, were two cases which were heard in 1972 before the U.S. Supreme Court. The initial filing was allowed at 407 U.S. 206
and the final decision was ordered at 407 U.S. 223 (1972).
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 order
s 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 escheat
s 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? As is the practice in original jurisdiction cases, the Supreme Court had a special master
hear the case and make a decision.
The final decision ruled that when Western Union does not know who the purchaser or the person who redeemed it is and a money order is never redeemed, the money escheats to the state where Western Union is incorporated, e.g. New York. Where Western Union does know who the purchaser or redeemer is, and a money order is never redeemed or is underreedemed, the remaining money escheats to the state where that purchaser resides, subject to that state's rules for escheat of unclaimed money or property. The Special Master decided to rely on the logic of the previous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. New Jersey, . The court approved the decision of the Special Master
.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
and the final decision was ordered at 407 U.S. 223 (1972).
When two states have a controversy between each other, the case is filed for original jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a court has the power to review a lower court's decision.-France:...
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
Western Union
The Western Union Company is a financial services and communications company based in the United States. Its North American headquarters is in Englewood, Colorado. Up until 2006, Western Union was the best-known U.S...
had issued money order
Money order
A money order is a payment order for a pre-specified amount of money. Because it is required that the funds be prepaid for the amount shown on it, it is a more trusted method of payment than a cheque.-History of money orders:...
s 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 escheat
Escheat
Escheat is a common law doctrine which transfers the property of a person who dies without heirs to the crown or state. It serves to ensure that property is not left in limbo without recognised ownership...
s 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? As is the practice in original jurisdiction cases, the Supreme Court had a special master
Special master
In law, a special master is an authority appointed by a judge to make sure that judicial orders are actually followed.In England, at common law, there were "Masters in Chancery," who acted in aid of the Equity Courts. There were also "Masters in Lunacy," who conducted inquiries of the same nature...
hear the case and make a decision.
The final decision ruled that when Western Union does not know who the purchaser or the person who redeemed it is and a money order is never redeemed, the money escheats to the state where Western Union is incorporated, e.g. New York. Where Western Union does know who the purchaser or redeemer is, and a money order is never redeemed or is underreedemed, the remaining money escheats to the state where that purchaser resides, subject to that state's rules for escheat of unclaimed money or property. The Special Master decided to rely on the logic of the previous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. New Jersey, . The court approved the decision of the Special Master
Special master
In law, a special master is an authority appointed by a judge to make sure that judicial orders are actually followed.In England, at common law, there were "Masters in Chancery," who acted in aid of the Equity Courts. There were also "Masters in Lunacy," who conducted inquiries of the same nature...
.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 407
- Text approving initial filing: case decision: