Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/664

628 HARVARD LAW REVIEW banks located in the state,^^^ are taxable, though the decedent was nonresident; and a tax on a share of a deceased nonresident partner may be levied where the business was carried on, that being its business situs.^" On the other hand, where a seat in the stock exchange is regarded as intangible property having a busi- ness situs, a seat in the New York exchange belonging to a non- resident who at the time of his death had ceased to carry on business in New York was held not taxable.^^^ Stock in a foreign corporation, however, belonging to a nonresident decedent is not taxable, though the certificate was in the state at the owner's death.219 For this purpose a chose in action is regarded as situated with the creditor; and a debt due from a resident debtor to a non- resident decedent is therefore not subject to the inheritance tax.^^" While the power to levy the tax at the situs of the property is clear, the legislature . does not necessarily impose a tax which would lie upon all property within the jurisdiction. The English legacy duty (dififering in this respect from the later succession duty) was held not to be payable out of property within the juris- diction belonging to a nonresident decedent,^^ and the same in- terpretation has been placed upon the federal inheritance tax.^ While, as has been said, the sovereign of the situs has entire V. Russell, 78 N. J. L. 296, 73 Atl. 51 (1909); Matter of Bronson, 150 N. Y. i, 44 N. E. 707 (1896); Matter of Fitch, 39 App. Div. 609, 57 N. Y. Supp. 786 (1899); Matter of Leavitt, 4 N. Y. Supp. 179 (1889); Small's Estate, 151 Pa. i, 25 Atl. 23 (1892). "" Greves v. Shaw, 173 Mass. 205, 53 N. E. 372 (1899); Matter of Gushing, 40 N. Y. Misc. 505, 82 N. Y. Supp. 795 (1903). 2" Stamp Duties Commissioner v. Salting, [1907] A. G. 449. "* In re Ogden's Estate (Misc.), 170 N. Y. Supp. 630 (1918). «9 Matter of James, 144 N. Y. 6, 38 N. E. 961 (1894); and see People v. GriflSth, 245 111. 532, 92 N. E. 313 (1910). =«"» Allen V. Philadelphia Sav. Fund Soc, i Fed. Gas. 234, 14 Phila. 408, 7 W. N. G. 231 (1879); Kintzing v. Hutchinson, Fed. Gas. No. 7,834, 7 W. N. G. 226 (1877); Gilbertson v. Oliver, 129 la. 568, 105 N. W. 1002 (1906); Matter of Gordon, 186 N. Y. 471, 79 N. E. 722 (1906); Matter of Horn, 39 N. Y. Misc. 133, 78 N. Y. Supp. 979 (1902); Orcutt's Appeal, 97 Pa. 179 (1881); Del Busto's Estate, 6 Pa. Go. Gt. 289 (1888). See, however, Alexander's Estate, 3 Glark (Pa.), 87, 4 Pa. L. J. 448 (1845). Contra, In re Gonunercial Bank, L. R. 5 Gh. 314 (1870); Attorney-General v. Newman, I Ont. L. R. 511 (1901). ^^ Thomson v. Advocate-General, 12 Gl. & F. i (1842); Wallace v. Attorney-General, L. R. I Gh. I (1865); In re Bruce, 2 Gr. & J. 436 (1832). ^ Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U. S. 578 (1902); Ruckgaber v. Moore, 104 Fed. 947 (1900).