Where the right of way of a railroad was taxed, it was held that no further tax could be levied in respect thereof ; People v. Ferry Co., 257 Ill. 452, 100 N. E. 956.
The assessment of an insurance company on its capital stock, surplus, contingent re serve, gross premiums and tangible property is double taxation ; Bankers' L. Ins. Co. v. Lancaster Co., 89 Neb. 469, 131 N. W. 1034. A resident of a state may be taxed on his stock in a foreign corporation, though it pays taxes in its home state ; State v. Nelson, 107 Minn. 319, 119 N. W. 1058.
Goods shipped to a state and there other wise taxable are not exempt because they had been taxed at the seller's domicil ; Spaulding v. Adams Co., 140 Pac. 367.
Double taxation was held to be illegal in the absence of special legislative authority therefor ; Lewiston W. & P. Co. v. Asotin Co., 24 Wash. 371, 64 Pac. 544. A tax which would amount to double taxation was held void in Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Com mon Council, 125 Mich. 673, 85 N. W. 96, 86 N. W. 809, 84 Am. St. Rep. 589 ; and in Peo ple v. Coleman, 135 N. Y. 231, 31 N. E. 1022 ; the court said it would be "against public policy, the purposes of the laws and natural justice." Generally, property in order to be subject to taxation must be within the jurisdiction of the taxing power ; Buck v. Beach, 206 U. S. 392, 27 Sup. Ct. 712, 51 L. Ed. 1106, 11 *nn. Cas. 732. Presumptively all property within a state is subject to its taxing power ; New York v. Tax Com'rs, 199 U. S. 1, 25 Sup. Ct. 705, 50 L. Ed. 65, 4 Ann. Cas. 381.
The power of taxation is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the tax payer in the protection of his person and property, &c. If the taxing power be not in a position to render those services or to benefit the person or property, and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another state, the taxation of such prop erty within the domicil of the owner par takes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and is beyond the power of the legislature; Union Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U. S. 202, 26 Sup. Ct. 36, 50 L. Ed. 150, 4 Ann. Cas. 493.
A state cannot tax tangible property per manently outside of the state and having no situs within the state; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 30 Sup. Ct. 190, 54 L. Ed, 355 ; and it cannot attain the same end by taxing the enhanced value of the capital stock of a corporation which arises from the value of property beyond its juris diction. This would be taxing property with
out due process of law ; Delaware L. & W. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U. S. 341, 25 Sup. Ct. 669, 49 L. Ed. 1077.
It is essential to the validity of a tax that the property shall be within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing power. Not only is the operation of state laws limited to per sons and property within the boundaries of the state, but property which is wholly and exclusively within the jurisdiction of another state receives none of the protection for which the tax is supposed to be the compen sation ; Union Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U. S. 194, 26 Sup. Ct. 36, 50 L. Ed. 150, 4 Ann. Cas. 493, where it was said that the court knew of no case where a legislature has assumed to impose a tax upon laud with in, the jurisdiction of a foreign state, and that the argument against the taxability of land applies with equal cogency to tangible personal property beyond the jurisdiction. It Is not only beyond the sovereignty of the taxing state, but does not and cannot receive protection under its laws, The rule that the power of a state to im pose taxes is limited to within, its territory does not apply in the same degree to federal legislation, since the underlying principle on which such rule is based is that taxes are the consideration for protection afforded, and the federal government has power to afford protection to its citizens, though they may be. domiciled and the prop erty located in a foreign country ; U. S. Billings, 190 Fed. 359.
In regard to tangible property the old rule was mobibia sequuntur personam. For the purposes of taxation, however, it has been held that personal property may be separat ed from its owner and taxed, even if it is not his own domicil and he is not a citizen of the state which imposes the tax. The same rule applies to intangible property ; Buck v. Beach, 206 U. S. 392,. 27 Sup. Ct. 712, 51 L. Ed. 1106, 11 Ann. Cas. 732. Intangible prop erty in the nature of a debt may be regard ed, for the purposes of taxation, as situated at the domicil of the creditor ; id. In In re Whiting's Estate, 150 N. Y. 27, 44 N. E. 715, 34 L. R. A. 232, 55 Am. St. Rep. 640, it was said that this rule or maxim had been re pealed.