As between the states of the United States, a ship at sea is presumed to be situate in the state in which it is registered ; Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 610, 21 L. Ed. 430.
A British ship belonging to a deceased per son, and registered at any port of the United Kingdom, is to be held, for some purposes at any rate, to be situate at that port. Goods on the high seas, which are capable of being dealt with in England by means of bills of lading in that country, are held situate in England, and goods which at the death of the deceased owner are in trainsitu to that coun try, and arrive there after his death, are ap parently to be held situate in England at his death. 'Money in a bank in Canada belonging to one who dies in England is considered as virtually in trom.situ. Bonds or other secur ities forming part of the property of a de ceased person, if they are in fact in England and are marketable securities there, saleable and transferable there by delivery only, with out its being necessary to do any act out of England to make the transfer valid, are situ ate in England, though the debts or money are owing from foreigners. Such bonds dif fer essentially from foreign loans, which can not be fully transferred without doing Some act in a foreign country. A debt due on a deed situate in England from a debtor resi dent abroad, and a debt due on a deed situ ate abroad from a debtor resident in Eng land, are situate in England. A judgment debt is assets where the judgment is record ed ; 4 M. & W. 171. A share in a partnership business is situate where the business is car ried on, but it has been said to be only a claim, and therefore situate wherever it can be enforced. See Massachusetts Mut. Acc. Ass'n v. Dudley, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 482. Most of the cases arise upon the liability of a decedent's property to the payment .of pro bate duties, but sometimes on the question of jurisdiction ; Dicey, Conti. Laws, Moore's ed. 318.
A license to use a patent in New South Wales could not be said to be locally situate anywhere. However, for the purposes of probate duty, property is capable of_ being localized, yet, for any other purposes, incor poreal rights could not be said to have any local situation ; [1896] 2 Q. B. 178. See 22
Law Mag.•& Rev. 116.
"The general rule of law is well settled that for the purpose of founding administra tion, all simple contract debts are assets at the domicil of the debtor; and that the lo cality of such a debt for this purpose is not affected by a bill of exchange or promissory note having been given for it, because * * * the bill or note is merely evidence of it, and therefore the debt is assets where the debtor lives, without regard to the place where the instrument is found or payable." Wyman v. Halstead, 109 U. S. 654, 3 Sup. Ct. 417, 27 L. Ed. 1068, citing Pinney v. MeGrego ry, 102 Mass. 186 ; Owen v. Miller, 10 Ohio St. 136, 75 Am. Dec. 502 ; 4 M. & W. 171.
The law, treating equitable interests in land like legal interests, holds such interests are governed by the law of the situs; the question whether a trust in land exists in favor of a certain claimant will in every court be determined as in the court of the situs; Keer v. White, 52 Ga. 362 ; though the law of the forum would not create a trust under the circumstances ; In re Fitzgerald, [1904] 1 Ch. 573; and even though by the law of the forum the creation of equitable interests is forbidden ; 2 Beale, Cas. on Conf. of Laws 204, translating Siebberas v. De Ger oninio, Journal du Palais 1895, IV. 28 (court of cassation, Palermo, 1899). On the other hand, if, by the law of the situs the transac tion did not create a valid trust, a trust will not be held to exist, either in the court of the situs; Perin v. McMicken's Heirs, 15 La. Ann. 154 ; Penfield v. Tower, 1 N. D. 216, 46 N. W. 413 ; 7 Ont. App. 614; or even in an other state where the law would have created a valid trust as a result of the transaction ; [1895] 1 Ch. 83 ; Acker v. Priest, 92 Ia. 610, 61 N. W. 235; 26 Can. 412. In Hawley v. James, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 213, 32 Am. Dec. 623, the trust was clearly invalid by the law of the forum but the court, holding that the validity of the trust must be determined by the law of the situs investigated that law and found the trust invalid by that law also.