JURISDICTION TO TAX 627 In the case of inheritance from a partner, the transferred interest in land held by the firm is regarded as personalty; the inheritance is therefore taxable at the domicile of the deceased partner, although the land is in another jurisdiction.^^" This is not, properly speak- ing, a case of equitable conversion. The legal ownership of the land is really held on a dry trust for the unincorporated associa- tion; and the real interest of the partner is to an unascertained balance, which is in truth a personal interest. It is within the power of a sovereign to tax the succession to chattels within his territory, and this is done by most of the in- heritance tax laws in this country; the succession to chattels within the state is taxable although the deceased died domiciled else- where.^^^ And this is true also of the English succession duty.^^^ In order for the succession to pass by the law of the situs the prop- erty must be within the jurisdiction at the moment of the owner's death; property of a decedent domiciled abroad which is brought into the state and there, for whatever reason, given to the executor after the death cannot be taxed. ^^^ The principles already examined as to the situs of things apply to the inheritance tax; thus bonds, notes, and deposits of money within the state, belonging to a foreign decedent, are taxable.^^^ Stock in corporations chartered in the state,^^^ and of national 2i» Forbes v. Steven, L. R. 10 Eq. 178 (1870)5^^6 Stokes, 62 L. T. R. 176 (1890).
- " Western Assurance Co. v. Halliday, 127 Fed. 830 (1903); People v. Griffith,
245 111. 532, 92 N. E. 313 (1910); State v. Dalrymple, 70 Md. 294, 17 Atl. 82 (1889);- Dixon V. Russell, 78 N. J. L. 296, 73 Atl. 51 (1909). See, however, under an earlier act, Neilson v. Russell, 76 N. J. L. 655, 71 Atl, 286 (1908); Matter of Swift, 137 N. Y. 77, 32 N. E. 1096 (1893); Matter of Romaine, 127 N. Y. 80, 27 N. E. 759 (1891). See, however, under an earlier act, Matter of Euston, 113 N. Y. 174, 21 N. E. 87 {1889); Matter of Embury, 19 App. Div. 214, 45 N. Y. Supp. 881 (1897); Alvany v. Powell, 2 Jones Eq. (55 N. C.) 51 (1854); In re Speers, 4 Ohio N. P. 238 (1897); Common- wealth V. Smith, 5 Pa. St. 142 (1847); Lewis's Estate, 203 Pa. 211, 52 Atl. 205 (1902). "Not a convincing authority." Brown, J., in Schoenberger's Estate, 221 Pa. 112, 70 Atl. 579 (1908). 212 Attorney-General v. Campbell, L. R. 5 H. L. 524 (1872). "» McCurdy v. McCurdy, 197 Mass. 248, 83 N. E. 881 (1908); Attorney-General V. Forbes, 2 CI. & F. 48 (1834); Hay v. Fairhe, i Russ. 117 (1826); Arnold v. Arnold, 2 Myl. & Cr. 256 (1836).
- " Hoyt V. Keegan, 167 N. W. 521 (la.) (1918); In re Rogers, 149 Mich. 305, 112
N. W. 931 (1907); Matter of Houdayer, 150 N. Y. 37, 44 N. E. 718 (1896); Matter of Burden, 47 N. Y. Misc. 329, 95 N. Y. Supp. 972 (1905). "" People V. Griffith, 245 111. 532, 92 N. E. 313 (1910); Greves v. Shaw, 173 Mass. 205, S3 N. E. 372 (1899); Gardiner v. Carter, 74 N. H. 507, 69 Atl. 939 (1908); Dixon
