Double taxation is defined as the require went that one person or any one subject of taxation shall directly contribute twice to the same burden, while other subjects of taxation belonging to the same class are re quired to contribute but once ; Cooley, Tax. 394, citing McNeill v. Hagerty, 51 Ohio St. 255, 37 N. D. 526, 23 L. R. A. 628; Corn. v.
R. Co., 150 Pa. 234. 24 Atl. 609 ; Second Ward S. Bk. v. Milwaukee, 94 Wis. 587, 69 N. W. 359. Double taxation does not exist in a legal sense unless the double tax is levied upon the same property within the same jurisdiction; an excise levied upon earnings from operating property is not a double tax because the property itself is taxed ; In re Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U. S. 576, 34 Sup. Ct. 372, 58 L. Ed. -. Where a testator died domiciled in Illinois and that state taxed the succession to his property, it was held that a tax imposed in New York on the transfer of his bank deposit in that state was not in valid ; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 23 Sup. Ct. 277. 47 L. Ed. 439, where it was said that the power of two states to tax on differ ent and more or less inconsistent principles leads to some hardship ; that it may be regret ted also that one and the same state should tax on the one hand according to the fact of power, and on the other, at the same time, according to the fiction that, in successions after death, mobilia sequuntur personam and domicil governs the whole; but that such in consistencies infringe no rule of constitution al law. So also in Hawley v. Malden, 232 U. S. 1, 34 Sup. Ct. 201, 58 L. Ed. -. Mr. Jud son, in his work on Taxation, points out that the only relief lies in interstate comity. See also In re Burr's Estate, 16 Misc. 89, 38 N. Y. Supp. 811, and an article by Simeon E. Baldwin in 14 Yale L. J. 134.
Land subject to a mortgage may be taxed for its full value without deduction of the mortgage debt from the valuation either of the land or of the owner's personal property; Paddell v. New York, 211 U. S. 446. 29 Sup. Ct. 139, 53 L. Ed. 275, 15 Ann. Cas. 187, where it is said that long settled habits of a com munity play an important part in determin ing questions of constitutional law, and the fact that a method of taxation was enforced for many years before the adoption of the 14th amendment is a reason for not consid ering that it was overthrown thereby.
Taxing both the property and stock of a corporation is held to be double taxation ; Loftin v. Bank, 85 Ind. 341; People v. Com'rs of Assessments, 69 N. Y. 91; but see Macon v. Bank, 59 Ga. 648, and infra; so is taxing a bicycle specially and also as a pleasure ve hicle ; Chicago v. Collins, 175 Ill. 445, 51 N.
E. 907, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 408, 67 Am. St. Rep. 224.
In assessing a succession tax upon "prop erty within the jurisdiction," a mortgage to a citizen upon real estate of a nonresident should be deducted ; McCurdy v. McCurdy, 197 Mass. 248, 83 N. E. 881, 16 L. R. A: (N. S.) 329, 14 Ann. Cas. 859; so in Matter of Skinner's Estate, 106 App. Div. 217, 94 N. Y. Supp. 144.
Double taxation is not favored in the law and will not be presumed ; State v. R. Co., 215 Mo. 479, 114 S. W. 956; People v. Cole man, 135 N. Y. 231, 31 N. E. 1022; though the legislature may constitutionally impose it ; id.; the same property cannot be subjected to a double tax, payable either directly or in directly by the same person ; In re Opinion of the Justices, 76 N. H. 588, 79 Atl. 31. But it has been said, on the contrary, that in the absence of any constitutional provision the power to tax is an inherent right of the sov ereign and is limited only by its necessities ; Alderman v. Wells, 85 S. C. 507, 67 S. E. 781, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 864, 21 Ann. Cas. 193. The assessment of personal property per manently located in a state, but belonging to a foreign corporation, is not double taxation though the shares of stock belonging to a resident have also been taxed ; Wilkens Co. v. Baltimore City, 103 Md. 293, 63 Atl. 562, 7 Ann. Cas. 1192; nor is it such when prop erty is held by different titles and both the creditor and the debtor are taxed, the one on his security and the other on his prop erty; Myers v. Richmond, 110 Va. 605, 66 S. E. 826.
The taxation of real property and of the rents thereof as income is not double taxa tion; In re Income Tax Cases, 148 Wis. 456, 134 N. W. 673, 135 N. W. 164 ; nor is a tax on gross earnings of a corporation and on its franchises in connection with its tangible property ; Lincoln T. Co. v. Lincoln, 84 Neb. 327, 121 N. W. 435 ; nor a tax on the prop erty of a corporation and an excise tax on its right to do business ; Ohio R. & W. R. Co. v. Dittey, 203 Fed. 537; nor a tax on a stock holder and also on corporate real property ; Appeal of Bulkeley, 77 Conn. 45, 58 Atl. 8 ; Illinois N. Bk. v. Kinsella, 201 III. 31, 66 N. E. 338 ; contra, as to taxing the property of corporation and its shares ; Dallas County v. Ins. Co., 97 Ark. 254, 133 S. W. 1113; Hunt v. Allen Co., 82 Kan. 824, 109 Pac. 106; East Livermore v. Banking Co., 103 Me. 418, 69 Atl. 306, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 952, 13 Ann. Cas. 631; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 139, 6 Sup. Ct. 649, 29 L. Ed. 833; First N. Bk. v. Douglas Co., 124 Wis. 15, 102 N. W. 315, 4 Ann. Cas. 34 ; Stroh v. Detroit, 131 Mich. 109, 90 N. W. 1029.