Personal property of a citizen and resident of one state, consisting of mortgages in an other state, is taxable in the latter state; Bristol v. Washington County, 177 U. S. 133, 20 Sup. Ct. 585, 44 L. Ed. 701. Mortgages on land in a state may be taxed by it to the mortgagees in the county where the land lies, though owned by residents of another state and in their possession ; Savings & L. Soc. v. Multnomah County, 169 U, S. 18 Sup. Ct. 392, 42 L. Ed. 803.
Mortgage notes made and payable in Ohlo and secured by a mortgage on Ohio property, the owner whereof resides in New York, are not taxable in Indiana where they are for safe keeping; Buck v. Beach, 206 U. S. 392, 27 Sup. Ct. 712, 51 L. Ed. 1106, 11 Ann. Cas. 732.. This case is distinguished in Wheeler v. New York, 233 U. S. 434, 440, 34 Sup. Ct. 607, 58 L. Ed. —.
A bank deposit of a non-resident is taxable at the situs of the bank; New Orleans v. Stempel, 175 U. S. 309, 20 Sup. Ct. 110, 44 L. Ed. 174.
A state may tax property in the form of credits evidenced by notes or obligations held within the state, in the hands there of an agent of a foreign corporation carrying on a permanent business there; State Board of Assessors v. Comptor National D'Escompte de Paris, 191 U. S. 388, 24 Sup. Ct. 109, 48 L. Ed. 232.
Bonds deposited by a foreign insurance company with a state insurance commission er, may be taxed by the state ; Scottish U. & N. Ins. Co. v. Rowland, 196 U. S. 611, 25 Sup. Ct. 345, 49 L. Ed. 619.
A tax imposed by a state upon tangible property within its limits, the owner of which is a non-resident, is not a personal charge against the owner, but must be en forced against the property ; People v. Chenango Co., 11 N. Y. 563; Dow v. First Parish in Sudbury, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 73; and such personalty cannot be taxed unless it has an actual situs within the state so as to be under the protection of its laws; Au gusta v. Dunbar, 50 Ga. 387.
The rule or fiction of law that personal property, more especially choses in action, has no situs away from the domicil of the owner at which it is deemed to be present, originated, according to Savigny, in Rome, and acquired the designation of mobilia personamt sequuntur; but its applicability to property was never held to extend be yond Roman territory. Subsequently it
became a device of international comity which, it has been declared, was subsequently "adopted from considerations of general con venience and policy and for the benefit of commerce." It. was never invented with a view to its being used as a rule to govern and define the application and scope of taxation, nor was it intended to have any other meaning than that, for the purpose of the sale and distribution of property, any act, agreement, or authority which is suffi cient in law where the owner resides, shall pass the property in the place where the property is, more especially to facilitate the distribution of decedents' estates by enabling owners to dispose of their property without embarrassment from their ignorance of the laws of the country where it is ; David A. Wells in 52 Pop: Sci. Monthly 356.
In dealing with the intangible interest of a stockholder, there is no question of physi cal situs, and the jurisdiction to tax such interest is not dependent upon the tangible Property of the corporation ; Hawley v. Malden, 232 U. S. 1, 34 Sup. Ct. 201, 58 L.
In estimating, for taxation, the value of a telegraph company's property in a state, it may be regarded as part of a system, and it may be taxed although incorporated by Congress, or engaged in interstate commerce; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Missouri, 190 U. S. 412, 23 Sup. Ct. 730, 47 L. Ed. 1116.
A state may tax the average number of cars (refrigerator) used by a railroad within the state, but owned by a foreign corporation, which has no office or place of business within the state, and employed as vehicles of transportation within the state in the in terchange of interstate commerce; American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70, 19 Sup. Ct. 599, 43 L. Ed. 899; refriger ator cars of a Kentucky corporation, used in Utah, may be taxed in Utah; Union Refrig erator Transit Co. v. Lynch, 177 U. S. 149, 20 Sup. Ct. 631, 44 L. Ed. 708. A foreign corporation (a sleeping car company) may be taxed not only on its tangible property in a state, but on the rights, privileges and fran chises; Pullman Co. v. Trapp, 186 Fed. 126, 108 C. C. A. 238.