6oo HARVARD LAW REVIEW See also cases collected showing the tendency to regard a cer- tificate of stock as tangible property in Bellows Falls Power Co. v. Commonwealth.^^ It is sometimes urged that to tax both the capital stock of the corporation and the shares is double taxation; and on this ground it has sometimes been held that the shares of a corporation which has already paid a tax upon its property cannot be taxed where the stockholder is a resident,®^ or even where he is non-resident.^ But in most cases the distinction between the shares of stock and the property of the company is recognized, and it is held that both may be taxed, each in the proper place.^"* A poHcy of insurance is not yet recognized as a chattel in mer- cantile usage, so as to make it taxable at the place where it is found. ^^ IV. Taxation of Intangible Property Intangible property has usually no actual situs, and therefore cannot be taxed by any sovereign because of his territorial power over it; it is usually included in the personal tax levied upon the owner of it at his domicile. Indeed, it has been held that no kind of intangible property of a nonresident can be taxed, at least without the aid of a statute specially providing for such a tax.®^ Certain kinds of intangible property may, however, be taxed locally. A seat in a stock exchange, for instance, is a valuable " 222 Mass. 51, 109 N. E. 891 (1915). ^ Strob V. Detroit, 131 Mich. 109, 90 N. W. 1029 (1902). ^ Kintzing v. Hutchinson, 7 W. N. C. 226, Fed. Cas. No. 7,834 (1877); San Fran- cisco V. Mackay, 10 Sawy. (U. S.) 431, 21 Fed. 539, affirmed 22 Fed. 602 (1884); North Carolina R. R. v. Commissioners, 91 N. C. 454 (1884); Union Bank v. State, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 490 (1836). So of bonds: In re Fair, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 184 (1900); Ger- mania Trust Co. v. San Francisco, 128 Cal. 589, 61 Pac. 178 (1900). " Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 134 (1895); Jefferson Covmty Sav. Bank v. Hewitt, 112 Ala. 546, 20 So. 926 (1896); State v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 70 Conn. 590, 40 Atl. 465 (1898); Illinois Nat. Bank v. KinseUa, 201 -III. 31, 66 N. E. 338 (1903); Cook V. BurUngton, 59 la. 251, 13 N. W. 113; Home Insurance Co. v. Assessors, 42 La. Ann. 1131, 8 So. 481 (1890); Welch v. Burrill, 223 Mass. 87, in N. E. 774 (1916); Bellows Falls Power Co. v. Commonwealth, 222 Mass. 51, 109 N. E. 891 (1915); Bradley v. Bauder, 36 Ohio St. 28 (1880); Providence & W. R. R. v. Wright, 2 R. I. 459 (1853); State V. Bank of Commerce, 95 Tenn. 221, 31 S. W. 993 (1895); Common- wealth V. Charlottesville P. B. & L. Co., 90 Va. 790, 20 S. E. 364 (1894); Second Ward Sav. Bank v. Milwaukee, 94 Wis. 587, 69 N. W. 359 (1896).
- Matter of Horn, 39 N. Y. Misc. 133, 78 N. Y. Supp. 979 (1902).
•* Callahan v. Singer Mfg. Co., 29 Ky. L. Rep. 123, 92 S. W. 581 (1906).
