EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT (V. xlii, p. 25). Many cases appear in the books in which this question is involved. This article makes a minute study of the two rules in vogue in this country, the Massa chusetts rule and the Pennsylvania rule. The latter is sometimes said to be followed by so many other states as to be entitled to be called the American rule, but Mr. Walter disagrees with this opinion. Summing up the Pennsylvania cases, " we find that the doctrine of the courts of that State is that the actual value of stock at the time of the testator's death, as determined by the total amount of all the assets of the corporation of whatever kind, is the principal or corpus of. the estate, which no act of the corporation or of the executors or trustees is allowed to diminish or even increase. The cases clearly hold that the failure of the trustee to change the form of investment, or the act of the corporation in retaining or distributing its earnings, will not be per mitted to extract one cent from the testator's proportional interest in the assets of the corporation as they existed at his death. In other words, the value of his proportional interest at the moment of his decease is seized upon and impounded as the maximum and minimum amount to which the remainder men are entitled. They even go so far as to say that even a right to subscribe for new shares will not be allowed to add to that amount." In the Massachusetts and United States Supreme courts, the rule has been established "that what the corporation capitalizes in its business, by investing it in property used in the prosecution of that business or using it as working capital, is capital for the remainder men; and what it pays out to its stockholders as profits is income for the life tenants. The question that they investigate is what the corporation did; and if, upon the investi gation of the substance and intent of the act of the corporation, it appears that the divi dend is a segregation of a part of the assets of the company from the remainder of those assets and a payment of the part so segre gated to the stockholders so as to change the ownership thereof from the corporation to the stockholders, they hold that the dividend is income, whatever be the form of payment; while if it appear that the dividend is a dis
207
tribution to the stockholders of mere evi dences of an equitable interest in assets of the company that are retained by it for use in its business, then they hold that the divi dend is capital, whether such distribution be made in the form of new certificates of stock or bonds, or even checks, or money." An extended comparison of the theory and working of the two rules is all is favor of the Massachusetts rule. The testator's intent should govern, of course, the trouble is that he hardly ever expresses himself clearly on this point. "There should, however, be some broad and clear rule making the nearest possible • ap proach to exact justice, and we are inclined to think that the rights of the parties can be most equitably adjusted by drawing the distinction between working capital and floating capital and awarding all issues of additional stock against accumulated surpluses and all cash dividends from work ing capital to the remainder-men, and all the current dividends and all the cash dividends from floating capital to the life tenants." CARRIERS. " The Law of Street Car Transfers," by Raymond D. Thurber, Bench attd Bar (V. xii, p. 61). CONFLICT OF LAWS. " Jurisdiction in Divorce," by J. Arthur Barratt. Law Magazine and Review (V. xxxiii, p. 199). A paper read at the Portland conference of the International Law Association, August 30, 1907, stating the cases in which the English courts will recognize an American divorce. The author suggests that the decrees ren dered in every state should be required to be filed with the state secretary of state, before they become final. A central regis try at Washington would be a still longer step in the right direction. It would then be possible to find out, without searching the records of every county in the United States — " first whether a divorce decree had been rendered, and, secondly, where it had been rendered; and a woman could find out what her husband was doing, and proceedings could be taken in the proper State to annul or stop many of these fraudulent divorces. "I think also, that, on the lines of my former suggestions, there ought to be a statute passed in every state, as I believe
