Hauenstein v. Lynham
25 L. Ed. 628, 100 U.S. 483, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1841 (1880)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, a federal treaty granting foreign citizens the right to inherit or sell real property supersedes any conflicting state law that would otherwise prevent such inheritance or sale through escheat.
Facts:
- Solomon Hauenstein, a citizen of Switzerland, acquired real estate while living in Richmond, Virginia.
- Hauenstein died in Virginia around 1861, intestate, unmarried, and without any children.
- The plaintiffs in error are Hauenstein's relatives and legal heirs, all of whom are citizens of Switzerland.
- At the time of Hauenstein's death, Virginia's common law prevented aliens from taking real property by descent or inheritance.
- A treaty concluded in 1850 between the United States and the Swiss Confederation addressed the property rights of citizens from each nation within the territory of the other.
Procedural Posture:
- An inquisition of escheat was prosecuted in Virginia by the district escheator concerning Solomon Hauenstein's real property.
- A verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of the escheator in the Virginia trial court.
- Hauenstein's heirs (plaintiffs in error) filed a petition in the same court to claim the proceeds from the property's sale.
- The Virginia trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that the heirs had no valid claim to the property.
- The heirs, as appellants, removed the case to the Virginia Court of Appeals.
- The Virginia Court of Appeals, as the state's highest court, affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
- The heirs then sought and were granted a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 1850 treaty between the United States and the Swiss Confederation grant Swiss citizens the right to sell real property inherited from a Swiss citizen in Virginia and collect the proceeds, thereby superseding Virginia's law on alien inheritance?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Swayne
Yes, the 1850 treaty grants Swiss citizens the right to sell the inherited property and collect the proceeds, superseding contrary Virginia law. The court's reasoning is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which makes treaties the supreme law of the land, overriding any conflicting state laws. The treaty's fifth article explicitly provides that if an alien heir cannot hold real property, they must be accorded 'such term as the laws of the State or canton will permit to sell such property.' Virginia argued that since its laws permitted no term, the treaty right was nullified. The Court rejected this restrictive interpretation, holding that where a treaty admits of two constructions, the more liberal one that favors the rights granted is to be preferred. The absence of a state law defining a time limit does not extinguish the right; rather, it means the right to sell is not barred by any statute of limitation. This interpretation is consistent with the federal government's exclusive power to make treaties, a power expressly forbidden to the states.
Analysis:
This decision powerfully reaffirms the principle of federal supremacy, particularly the force of treaties over state laws concerning property and alienage. It establishes that the federal government, through its treaty-making power, can create property rights for foreign nationals that states cannot diminish or eliminate. The Court's adoption of a liberal construction for treaty interpretation ensures that treaty obligations are not easily frustrated by state legislative inaction or restrictive state laws. This precedent solidifies the role of treaties in protecting the rights of aliens within the United States, shaping future disputes involving conflicts between state law and international agreements.
Unlock the full brief for Hauenstein v. Lynham