[§ 127] b. Discrimination. A state may not in any way discriminate in its taxation against the products and manufactures of other states or foreign countries.10 .While there is no discrimination, where the same tax is laid on goods of another state as is laid on domestic products or manufactures,11 a state tax on interstate commerce is not made valid by the fact that it is laid without discrimination on both state and interstate commerce; the state has a right to tax its own domestic commerce and property as it pleases, but it cannot in any way tax interstate commerce.12 [128] 2. Property Tax-a. Subjects of Commerce (1) Property in Transit.13 A state tax on. oil, goods, live stock, or other property in transit from one state to another is void, and it is immaterial whether the tax is laid by the state of origin or the state of destination. In the one case the protection of the commerce clause has attached, and in the other such protection has not ceased.1 So, too, a state statute requiring all carriers doing business Bell Tel. Co., 27 Mont. 394, 71 P 311. Nebr.-Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wakefield, 69 Nebr. 272, 95 NW 659. N. Y.-Peo. v. Roberts, 36 App. Div. 597, 55 NYS 950 [aff 167 N. Y. 617 mem, 60 NE 1117 mem]. N. C.-Lacy v. Armour Packing Co., 134 N. C. 567, 47 SE 53. Pa.-Johnstown V. Central Dist., etc., Tel. Co., 23 Pa. Super. 381. Partial invalidity of regulatory statutes in general see supra § 62. 9. Cross references: Against nonresidents by imposition of higher tax see Taxation [37 Cyc 741]. Power to impose higher tax on foreign corporation than on domestic corporation see Taxation [37 Cyc 748]. 10. U. S.-Darnell v. Memphis, 208 U. S. 113, 28 SCt 247, 52 L. ed. 413 [rev 116 Tenn. 424, 95 SW 816]; Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78, 11 SCt 213, 35 L. ed. 862; Lyng v. Michigan, 135 U. S. 161, 10 SCt 725, 34 L. ed. 150; Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 6 SCt 454, 29 L. ed. 691 [rev 53 Mich. 264]; Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434, 25 L. ed. 743; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 24 L. ed. 1015; Delaware R. Tax, 18 Wall. 206, 21 L. ed. 888; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 20 L. ed. 449; Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148, 19 L. ed. 387. 15 in the state to pay a tax on all merchandise carried, based on the weight of the merchandise, is in conflict with the commerce clause of the constitution, in so far as it relates to interstate traffic.1 The operation of the rule that articles in transit cannot be taxed is not affected by the fact that the owner of the property is a citizen of the state.18 While the proposition that property temporarily at rest within a state, for the purpose of separation and assortment or reshipment, or because of other reasons, does not acquire a situs in the state, so as to become subject to state taxation, finds some support in early cases, the weight of authority, as found in later cases, is to the effect that, to entitle an article of commerce to be exempt from state taxation, there must be a continuous movement of it in interstate commerce, and that it may be taxed by the state when it is held at storage or distributing points, with the intention of delivering it to buyers or of transshipping to other points.18 17 ily in state or in transit see Taxation [37 Cyc 809]. 14. U. S.-Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U. S. 504, 33 SCt 299, 57 L. ed. 615 [aff 243 Ill. 313, 90 NE 686, 44 LRA NS 586 and note]; Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489, 7 SCt 592, 30 L. ed. 694; Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 504, 6 SCt 835, 29 L. ed. 988; Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517. 6 SCt 475, 29 L. ed. 715 [aff 62 N. H. 303]; Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 6 SCt 454, 29 L. ed. 691; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 5 SCt 826, 29 L. ed. 158; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. V. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 232, 21 L. ed. 146 [rev 62 Pa. 286, 1 AmR 399]; Cooley v. Philadelphia, 12 How. 299, 13 L. ed. 996; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678. Il-Prairie Oil, etc., Co. v. Ehrhardt, 244 Ill. 634. 91 NE 680. Ind. Standard Oil Co. v. Bachelor, 89 Ind. 1. Md. Myers v. Baltimore County, 83 Md. 385, 35 A 144, 55 AmSR 349, 34 LRA 309. N. J.-State v. Carrigan, 39 N. J. L. 35; State v. Engle, 34 N. J. L. 425; Erie R. Co. v. State, 31 N. J. L. 531, 86 AmD 226. [a] The ground on which the denial of the power of a state to tax articles actually moving in interstate transportation rests is the supremacy of the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. Its posttulate is the necessary freedom of that commerce from the burden of Mich. Jackson Min. Co. v. Auditor such local exactions as are inconGeneral, 32 Mich. 488. Ala.-Powell v. State, 69 Ala. 10; Vines v. State, 67 Ala. 73. Mass.-Com. V. Mass. 217, 66 NE 807. Petranich, 183 sistent with the control and protection of that power. Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U. S. 504, 33 SCt 299, 57 L. ed. 615 [aff 243 Ill. 313, 90 NE 686, 44 LRANS 586]. [b] Oil pumped through a pipe line, on its way from a point in one state to a point in another state, is a subject of interstate commerce and is exempt from local taxation. Prairie Oil, etc., Co. v. Ehrhardt, 244 Ill. 634, 91 NE 680. [c] Sheep driven through state. A flock of ten thousand sheep, which is being driven from Utah by a direct route across the state of Wyoming to the state of Nebraska at a rate of about nine miles per day, is the subject of interstate commerce, and is therefore exempt from taxation under Wyo. L. (1895) c 61, authorizing the taxing of live stock brought into the state for grazing purposes, although the sheep may, while actually in transit, have been permitted incidentally to support themselves by grazing over land one fourth of a mile in width. when they might have been transported by rail. Kelley v. Rhoads, 188 U. S. 1, 23 SCt 259, 47 L. ed. 359 [rev 9 Wyo. 352, 63 P 935, 87 AmSR 959]. 15. Fargo v. Stevens, 121 U. S. 230, 7 SCt 857, 30 L. ed. 888; Pickard v. Pullman Southern Car Co., 117 U. S. 34, 6 SCt 635, 29 L. ed. 785; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 456, 22 L. ed. 678; State Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 232, 21 L. ed. 146 [rev 62 Pa. 286, AmR 399, and foll State Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 284, 21 L. ed. 164; State v. Cumberland, etc., R. Co., 40 Md. 22]; Erie R. Co. v. State, 31 N. J. L. 531, 86 AmD 226 [rev 30 N. J. L. 473]. 16. Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U. S. 504, 511, 33 SCt 299, 57 L. ed. 615 [aff 243 Ill. 313, 90 NE 686, 44 LRA NS 586] (where the court said: "The fact that such a burden is sought to be imposed by the State of the domicile of the owner, upon property moving in interstate commerce, creates no exception. That State enjoys no prerogative to make levy upon such property passing through it, because it may belong to its citizens. They, as well as others, are under the shelter of the commerce clause. The question is determined not by the residence of the owner but by the nature and effect of the particular state action with respect to a subject which has come under the sway of a paramount authority"). 17. State v. Carrigan, 39 N. J. L. 35; State v. Engle, 34 N. J. L. 425. 18. Susquehanna Coal Co. v. South Amboy, 228 U. S. 665, 33 SCt 712, 57 L. ed. 1015 [aff 184 Fed. 9411; Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U. S. 504, 33 SCt 299. 57 L. ed. 615 [aff 243 Ill. 313, 90 NE 686, 44 LRANS 586]; General Oil Co. v. Crain, 209 U. S. 211, 28 SCt 475, 52 L. ed. 754 [aff 117 Tenn. 82. 95 SW 824, 121 AmSR 967] (holding that oil shipped from Pennsylvania and Ohio, and destined ultimately for points in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, is not property in interstate commerce, so as to be exempt from state tax laws while it is held at a distributing point maintained by the shipper in Tennessee, at which point such oil is unloaded from tank cars into various tanks. barrels, and other receptacles, and from which it is forwarded to its final destination); Merchants Transfer Co. v. Des Moines Bd. of Review, 128 Iowa 732, 105 NW 211, 2 LRANS 662 and note, 5 AnnCas 1016 and note; Lehigh, etc., Coal Co. v. Borough of Junction, 75 N. J. L. 68, 66 A 923; Logan v. Brown, 125 Tenn. 209, 141 SW 751; American Steel, etc.. Co. v. Speed, 110 Tenn. 524, 75 SW 1037. 100 AmSR 814 [aff 192' U. S. 500, 24 SCt 365, 48 L. ed. 538]. [a] Grain in elevators. In one case, grain in elevators at Chicago, 21 24 23 goods and is invalid when applied to goods imported in the original packages. The tax is not on the privilege of selling by auction. Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 24 L. ed. 1015. Regulation, otherwise than by taxation, of goods in original packages see supra §§ 27-32, 109. [129] (2) Imports. A state is prohibited, not reason of their so coming.2 So long as goods reonly by the commerce clause of the United States main the property of the importer, in the original constitution,19 but also as to imports from foreign form or package in which imported, they retain their countries, by the clause forbidding a state from lay- character of imports and a tax on them by a state ing imposts or duties on imports or exports,20 from is unconstitutional.2 But after the goods have imposing a tax on goods transported into a state as arrived in the state and have become mingled with, long as they remain imports, or from levying a and part of, the general mass of property in the discriminating tax on foreign or domestic imports, state, they lose their character as imports, and may even after they have become mingled with the com- be taxed in the same manner that other similar mon mass of property of the state,22 or from tax- property in the state is taxed.25 Where a tax is ing goods coming from other states, as such, or by valid under the rules just stated, it is not rendered Illinois, was taxed, the facts showing [a] Taxation of imported oysters. | the state treasurer a percentage tax that it had been shipped from south-│(1) A Maryland statute, providing on all goods sold, is a tax on the ern and western states under con- among other things for the taxation tracts for its transportation to New of oysters consigned from points York and other eastern cities, with a without the state to a point within reservation of the right to remove it the state, and making payment of the from the cars at Chicago, "for the tax a condition precedent to sale, was mere temporary purposes of inspect-held invalid as constituting an iming, weighing, cleaning, clipping, dry- pediment to the prosecution of intering, sacking, grading or mixing, or state commerce. Foote v. Clagett, changing the ownership, consignee 116 Md. 228, 81 A 511. (2) A stator destination' thereof." Plaintiff in ute (Gen. Acts [1911] pp 458, 466), error bought the grain while in tran- imposing a tax on oysters taken from sit and removed it from the cars to public reefs or private bedding his own private elevator. In hold- grounds for packing or sale, was coning that it was there subject to local strued to refer only to oysters taken taxation, the court said: "The prop- in waters within the jurisdiction of erty was held by the plaintiff in Alabama, and hence was held not inerror in Chicago for his own purvalid as an unauthorized interferposes and with full power of dis- ence with interstate commerce. State position. It was not being actually v. Parker, 5 Ala. A. 231, 59 S 741. transported and it was not held by (3) Another provision of the same carriers for transportation. The statute which imposed a tax on plaintiff in error had withdrawn it oysters coming from without the from the carriers. The purpose of the state was held valid on account of withdrawal did not alter the fact that the tax being operative only after it had ceased to be transported and the oysters had come to rest and had had been placed in his hands. He ceased to be subjects of interstate had the privilege of continuing the commerce. Mangeldorf v. State, 8 transportation under the shipping Ala. A. 302, 62 S 373. Contracts, but of this he might avail himself or not as he chose. He might sell the grain in Illinois or forward it as he saw fit. It was in his possession with the control of absolute ownership. He intended to forward the grain after it has been inspected, graded, etc., but this intention, while the grain remained in his keeping and before it had been actually committed to the carriers for transportation, did not make it immune from local taxation." Bacon V. Illinois, 227 U. S. 504, 516, 33 SCt 299, 57 L. ed. 615 [aff 243 Ill. 313, 90 NE 686, 44 LRANS 586]. 19. U. S. Const. art 1 § 8 par 3. 20. U. S. Const. art 1 § 10 par 2. Direct levy of imposts and duties see infra § 161. 21. U. S.-American Steel, etc., Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500, 24 Sci 365, 48 L. ed. 538; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Sims, 191 U. S. 441, 24 SCt 151, 48 L. ed. 254; Philadelphia, etc., SS. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 7 SCt 1118, 30 L. ed. 1200; Howe Mach. Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676, 25 Led. 754; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 24 L. ed. 527; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456, 22 L. ed. 678; State Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. 232, 21 L. ed. 146 [rev 62 Pa. 286, 1 AmR 399]; Neil v. Ohio, 3 How. 720, 11 Led 800 [rev 7 Oh. 132, 28 AmD 623]; Indiana v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 16 Fed. 193, 11 Biss. 561; Indiana V. American Express Co., 13 F. Cas. No. 7,021, 7 Biss. 227. Kan-Hardy v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 32 Kan. 698, 5 P 6. Md.-Foote v. Clagett, 116 Md. 228, 81 A 511; State v. Cumberland, etc., R. Co., 40 Md. 22; State v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 34 Md. 344. Mich.-Jackson Min. Co. v. Auditor General, 32 Mich. 488. N. J-State v. Carrigan, 39 N. J. L. 35: Erie R. Co. v. State, 31 N. J. L. 531, 86 AmD 226 [rev 30 N. J. L. 473]. N. Y.-Peo. v. Wemple, 131 N. Y. 64, 29 NE 1002, 27 AmSR 542 and note [aff 61 Hun 53, 15 NYS 711]: Peo. v. Maring, 3 Keyes 374 [aff 47 Barb. 642]. N. C-Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Campen, 135 N. C. 506, 47 SE 658. 22. Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622, 23 SCt 229, 47 L. ed. 336; Philadelphia, etc., SS. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 7 SCt 1118, 30 L. ed. 1200 [crit State Tax on R. Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 284, 21 L. ed. 164]; Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489, 7 SCt 592, 30 L. ed. 694; Brown V. Houston, 114 U. S. 622. 5 SCt 1091, 29 L. ed. 257; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344, 26 L. ed. 565: Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123. 26 L. ed. 103; Howe Mach. Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676. 25 L. ed. 754; Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 148, 19 L. ed. 387; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 123, 19 L. ed. 382: Kehrer v. Stewart, 117 Ga. 969. 44 SE 854; Myers v. Baltimore County, 83 Md. 385, 35 A 144. 55 AmSR 349, 34 LRA 309; Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Campen, 135 N. C. 506. 47 SE 658. Discrimination generally in taxation of products and manufactures of other states and countries see supra § 127. 23. Caldwell V. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622, 23 SCt 229, 47 L. ed. 336; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622, 5 SCt 1091, 29 L. ed. 257; Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Campen, 135 N. C. 506. 47 SE 658. 24. U. S.-New York v. Wells, 208 Ill. In re Doane, 197 Ill. 376, 64 La.-State v. Board of Assessors, N. J.-Gerdan v. Davis, 67 N. J. L. N. C.-Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Pa. New Castle v. Cutler, 15 Pa. [a] An auctioneer's tax, requiring 25. U. S.-New York y. Wells, 208 U. S. 14, 48 SCt 193, 52 L. ed. 370; American Steel, etc., Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500. 24 SCt 365, 48 L. ed. 538 [aff 110 Tenn. 524, 75 SW 1037, 100 AmSR 814]; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Sims. 191 U. S. 441, 24 SCt 151, 48 L. ed. 254; May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496, 20 SCt 976, 44 L. ed. 1165; Pittsburgh, etc., Coal Co. v. Bates, 156 U. S. 577, 15 SCt 415, 39 L. ed. 538 [aff 40 La. Ann. 226, 3 S 642, 8 AmSR 519]; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622, 5 SCt 1091, 29 L. ed. 257 faff 33 La. Ann. 843, 39 AmR 2841; Howe Mach. Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676, 25 L. ed. 754: Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. ed. 347; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123, 19 L. ed. 382; Ex p. Hanson, 28 Fed. 127. Ala.-Mobile v. Waring, 41 Ala. 139 [aff 8 Wall. (U. S.) 110, 19 L. ed. 342]. Ga.-Kehrer D. C.-In re Wilson, 19 D. C. 341, 12 LRA 624. V. Stewart, 117 Ga. 969, 44 SE 854: Padelford v. Savannah, 14 Ga. 438. Ida.-Parks v. Nez Perce County, 13 Ida. 298, 89 P 949. 121 AmSR 261, 12 AnnCas 1113; In re Kinyon, 9 Ida. 642, 75 P 268, 2 AnnCas 699 and note. Ind.-Darnell v. State, 174 Ind. 143, 90 NE 769; Standard Oil Co. V. Combs, 96 Ind. 179, 49 AmR 156. Iowa. Merchants' Transfer Co. v. Des Moines Bd. of Review, 128 Iowa 732, 105 NW 211. 2 LRANS 662 and note, 5 AnnCas 1016 and note. La.-Gelpi v. Schenck, 48 La. Ann. 1535, 21 S 115. Md.-Myers v. Baltimore County, 83 Md. 385. 35 A 144, 55 AmSR 349, 34 LRA 309. Miss. Harrison v. Vicksburg, 11 Miss. 581, 41 AmD 633. N. Y.-Peo. v. Roberts, 158 N. Y. 162, 52 NE 1102 [aff 27 App. Div. 632, 50 NYS 1132]; Peo. v. Raynes, 136 App. Div. 417, 120 NYS 1053 [aff 198 N. Y. 539 mem, 92 NE 1097 mem]. Pa. Com. v. Cover, 215 Pa. 556, 64 A 686; New Castle v. Cutler, 15 Pa. Super. 612. Tenn.-Darnell, etc., Co. v. Memphis, 116 Tenn. 424, 95 SW 816. Wash.-Spaulding v. Adams County, 79 Wash. 193, 140 P 367. [a] Stated in another way, the rule is that, after property has left the channels of commerce and has obtained a situs in the state, it is subject to the taxing power of the state; and the interstate commerce clause of the federal constitution can be invoked only to protect such property from unjust discrimination. Darnell v. State, 174 Ind. 143, 90 NE 769. [b] Concerning goods in original packages (1) it is held that, after merchandise in the original package has once been sold by the importer, it becomes incorporated with the mass of property of the state and is taxable as is other property of the state. Pervear v. Massachusetts, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 475, 18 L. ed. 608; State invalid by the mode of collection provided;26 and, on the other hand, where it is invalid, it is immaterial whether it is laid directly on the article,27 or is in the form of a license tax on its sale.28 Α tax imposed on all live stock brought into a state for the purpose of being grazed therein is not void as an interference with interstate commerce.29 31 its final movement for transportation from the state of its origin to that of its destination,32 and this final movement is not begun until the property has been shipped or entered for shipment with a common carrier for transportation to another state, or has been started on such transportation in a continuous route or journey.33 [§ 131] b. Means and Intrumentalities of Commerce (1) In General. The states may constitutionally tax as property the property of a foreign corporation within the state, although such corporation may be engaged in interstate or foreign commerce. 34 Stated more broadly, the rule is that a state may, by any form of property taxation, tax property having a situs therein, notwithstanding it may belong to persons or corporations engaged in interstate commerce and may be used therein.3 The incourse of transportation has begun. Vansant v. Com., 108 Va. 135, 60 SE 753. [130] (3) Exports. Goods cannot be taxed by a state by reason of their being intended for exportation, even though they still remain a part of the general mass of property of the state.30 But the mere intention of the owner of goods to export them does not exempt such goods from state taxation, provided they are taxed in the usual manner, and not because of their anticipated departure. Property intended for export may be taxed the same as other property up to the time when it commences v. Board of Assessors, 46 La. Ann. | lating the commerce clause of the 145, 15 S 10, 49 AmSR 318. (2) The constitution, because such goods have same result follows where the goods a situs in the state. Standard Oil are held or exposed for sale (Ameri- Co. v. Combs, 96 Ind. 179, 49 AmR can Steel, etc., Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 156; Rieman v. Shepard, 27 Ind. 288; 500, 24 SCt 365, 48 L. ed. 538 [aff 110 Powell v. Madison, 21 Ind. 335. (3) Tenn. 524, 75 SW 1037, 100 AmSR "Property within the State for the 614]), (3) by the opening of the purpose of undergoing any part of boxes, cases, or bales in which the the process of manufacture is here goods were shipped, and the offering for more than a temporary purpose or exposing for sale of the smaller, connected with its transportation. separate packages in which the goods The situs of the property does not are put up by the manufacturer, it depend upon the extent of the work being deemed that the protection of that is to be done upon it, for, if it the original package from taxation is here to be put through any of the extends only to the larger and not to stages in the process of manufacthe smaller packages (May v. New ture, it is here for a purpose which Orleans, 178 U. S. 496, 20 SCt 976, 44 legitimately subjects it to taxation." L. ed. 1165 [aff 51 La. Ann. 1064, 25 Standard Oil Co. v. Combs, 96 Ind. S 959]). (4) Goods purchased from 179, 181, 49 AmR 156. an importer after they have been brought within the jurisdiction of the United States, but before they have been delivered to the port of entry to which they were consigned, are subject to taxation by state authority. Mobile v. Waring, 41 Ala. 139 [aff 8 Wall, (U. S.) 110, 19 L. ed. 342]. Tax on credits arising from sale of goods in original packages see infra § 140. 26. Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 148, 19 L. ed. 387. 27. Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344. 26 L. ed. 565. 28. See infra § 142. 29. Peo. v. Niles, 35 Cal. 282. Rule where cattle or sheep are being driven through state see supra § 128. 30. U. S.-Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 6 SCt 475, 29 L. ed. 715. La. State v. Allgeyer, 110 La. 839, 34 S 798. Md. Myers v. Baltimore County, 83 Md. 385, 35 A 144, 55 AmSR 349, 34 LRA 309. Miss. Adams v. Mississippi Lumber Co., 84 Miss. 23, 36 S 68. Oh.-Carrier v. Gordon, 21 Oh. St. 605. Imposition of duty on exports see infra § 161. 31. U. S.-Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 504, 6 SCt 835, 29 L. ed. 988; Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 6 SCt 475, 29 L. ed. 715. Ill-Walton v. Westwood, 73 Ill. 125. Ind. Standard Oil Co. v. Combs, 96 Ind. 179. 49 AmR 156. Ky.-Com. v. Sellinger, 126 Ky. 66. 98 SW 1040. 30 KyL 451. Md. State v. Cumberland, etc., R. Co.. 40 Md. 22. Contra Rothermel v. Meyerle, 136 Pa. 250, 20 A 583. 9 LRA 366. [a] Property purchased by nonresidents. (1) Grain bought by an agent on commission for a nonresident principal, and stored in the agent's warehouse, is subject to taxation. Walton v. Westwood. 73 Ill. 125. (2) So also, goods purchased by a citizen of another state. but maining in the state to undergo a further process of manufacture, may be taxed by the state without vio re 35 34. Western Union Tel. Co. V. Atty.-Gen., 125 U. S. 530, 8 SCt 961, 31 L. ed. 790; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 5 SCt 826, 29 L. ed. 158; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, 133 Ind. 609, 33 NE 443 [aff 154 U. S. 421, 14 SCt 1114, 38 L. ed. 1031]; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, 133 Ind. 513, 33 NE 421, 18 LRA 729 [aff 154 Ú. S. 439, 14 SCt 1122, 38 L. ed. 1041]; State v. Wells, 38 Nev. 505, 150 P 836. [a] Theory of the court.-"Although the transportation of the subjects of interstate commerce, or the receipts received therefrom, or the 32. Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 6 occupation or business of carrying SCt 475, 29 L. ed. 715 [aff 62 N. H. it on, cannot be directly subjected to 303]; Myers v. Baltimore County, 83 state taxation, yet property belongMd. 385, 35 A 144, 55 AmSR 349, 34 ing to corporations or companies enLRA 309. Contra Ogilvie v. Craw-gaged in such commerce may be; and ford County, 7 Fed. 745, 2 McCrary whatever the particular form of the 148 (holding that goods ready and in- exaction, if it is essentially only tended for immediate shipment, when property taxation, it will not be conactually shipped in a reasonable time, sidered as falling within the inhibiare beyond the reach of state taxa- tion of the Constitution." Adams tion). Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 220, 17 SCt 305, 41 L. ed. 683. [a] Coal mined in the state, awaiting shipment to parties outside the state who have purchased it, is not subject to state taxation. State v. Carrigan, 39 N. J. L. 35. 33. Diamond Match Co. v. Ontonagon, 188 U. S. 82, 23 SCt 266, 47 L. ed. 349; Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 6 SCt 475, 29 L. ed. 715 [aff 62 N. H. 303]; State V. Burlington Lumber Co., 118 Minn. 329, 334, 136 NW 1033 (where the court said: "Where the transaction involves a gathering together of separate articles and their aggregation into a package or mass for the final journey, it would seem, at least as a general rule, that the movement incident to such assembling of the component parts of such final package or mass should be held to be a matter of mere preparation for shipment"); State v. Taber Lumber Co., 101 Minn. 186, 112 NW 214, 13 LRA NS 800 and note; Vansant v. Com., 108 Va. 135, 60 SE 753. [a] Illustrations.—(1) Logs which have been cut and floated down a stream and its tributaries to a boom or sorting gap, from which they are to be shipped by rail as needed to a point outside the state, are not, while awaiting delivery to the railroad company, the subject of interstate commerce, so as to be exempt from state taxation. Diamond Match Co. water v. Ontonagon, 188 U. S. 82, 23 Tax on gross receipts see infra § 156. 35. U. S.-Baltic Min. Co. V. Massachusetts, 231 U. S. 68, 34 SCt 15, 58 L. ed. 384 [aff 207 Mass. 381, 93 NE 831, 212 Mass. 35, 98 NE 1056, AnnCas1913C 805 and note]; U. S. Express Co. v. Minnesota, 223 U. S. 335, 32 SCt 211, 56 L. ed. 459 [aff 114 Minn. 346, 13 NW 489]; Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Powers, 191 U. S. 379, 24 SCt 107, 50 L. ed. 229; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Missouri, 190 U. S. 412, 23 SCt 730, 47 L. ed. 1116; Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160, 23 SCt 817, 47 L. ed. 995; American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70, 19 SCt 599, 43 L. ed. 899 [aff 24 Colo. 291, 65 AmSR 223, 56 LRA 891; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 173 U. S. 592, 19 SCt 553, 43 L. ed. 823; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 150, 17 SCt 532, 41 L. ed. 953; Sanford v. Peo., 165 U. S. 194. 17 SCt 305, 41 L. ed. 683; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S. 1, 16 SCt 1054, 41 L. ed. 49; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 158 U. S. 431, 15 SCt 896, 39 L. ed. 1043; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 15 SCt 268, 39 L. ed. 311 [aff 71 Miss. 555, 14 S 36, 42 AmSR 476]; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 439. 14 SCt 1122, 38 L. ed. 1041 [aff 133 Ind. 513, 33 NE 421, 18 LRA 729]; Covington, etc., Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 14 SCt 1087, 38 L. ed. 962; Ficklen v. Shelby County Taxing Dist.. 145 U. S. 1, 12 SCt 810, 36 L. ed. 601; Pullman's Palace Car Co. V. Hay ward, 141 U. S. 36, 11 SCt 883, 35 L 36 strumentalities of interstate commerce having no situs within the state cannot be taxed by the state, and a state tax imposed on property because it is used in interstate or foreign commerce is void.37 [132] (2) Taxation by Unit Rule.38 The property of corporations engaged in interstate commerce, situated in the several states through which their lines of business extend, may be valued as a unit for the purposes of taxation, taking into consideration the uses to which it is put and all the elements making up its aggregate value; and a proportion of the whole fairly ascertained may be taxed by the particular state without violating the interstate com V. 39 merce clause of the federal constitution.3 876, 35 L. ed. 613; Leloup v. Mobile, | 33 NE 421, 18 LRA 729]. 36. Pullman Southern Car Co. v. Nolan, 22 Fed. 276 [aff 117 U. S. 34, 6 SCt 635, 29 L. ed. 785, 117 U. S. 51, 6 SCt 643, 29 L. ed. 791]; Williams v. Fears, 110 Ga. 584, 35 SE 699, 50 LRA 685. Ala-Southern R. Co. v. Mitchell, 139 Ala. 629, 37 S 85. Ark-St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. State, 106 Ark. 321, 152 SW 110. Ida-In re Abel, 10 Ida. 288, 77 P 621; In re Kinyon, 9 Ida. 642, 75 P 268, 2 AnnCas 699 and note. V. 37. Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co. V. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160, 23 SCt 817, 47 L. ed. 995; Pickard v. Pullman Southern Car Co., 117 U. S. 34, 6 SCt 635, 29 L. ed. 785 [disappr Pullman Southern Car Co. v. Gaines, 3 Tenn. Ch. 587]; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 5 SCt 826, 29 L. ed. 158; Peo. v. Wemple, 131 N. Y. 64, 29 NE 1002, 27 AmSR 542 [aff 61 Hun 83, 15 NYS 446]; Piedmont R. Co. v. Reidsville, 101 N. C. 404, 8 SE 124, 2 LRA 284. ex 38. General right of state to tax continuous piece of property tending into two or more states see Taxation [37 Cyc 719]. Taxation of proportionate part of total gross receipts see infra § 156. 39. U. S.-Western Union Tel. Co. v. Missouri, 190 U. S. 412, 23 SCt 730, 47 L. ed. 1116 [aff 165 Mo. 502, 65 SW 775]; American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70, 19 Ind.-Western Union Tel. Co. SCt 599, 43 L. ed. 899; Adams exTaggart, 141 Ind. 281, 40 NE 1051, press Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 171, 60 LRA 671; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. V. Backus, 133 Ind. 625, 33 NE 432; 17 SCt 527, 41 L. ed. 960; Sanford v. Poe, 165 Ú. S. 194, 17 SCt 305, 41 Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, L. ed. 683 [dist Pacific Express Co. 133 Ind. 609, 33' NE 443; Standard v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 12 SCt 250, Oil Co. v. Combs, 96 Ind. 179, 49 AmR 156. Ky-Louisville, etc., Ferry Co. v. Com, 108 Ky. 717, 57 SW 624, 626, 22 KyL 446, 480; Com. v. Smith, 92 Ky. 38, 17 SW 187, 13 KyL 362, 36 AmSR 578. Mo.-State v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 208 Mo. 622, 106 SW 1005. Co. V. N. J-Tide Water Pipe State Bd. of Assessors, 57 N. J. L. 516, 31 A 220, 27 LRA 684 [aff 59 N. J. L. 269, 39 A 1114]. N. Y.-Peo. v. Reardon, 184 N. Y. 431, 77 NE 970, 112 AmSR 628, 8 LRANS 314, 6 AnnCas 515; Peo. v. Wemple, 131 N. Y. 64, 29 NE 1002, 27 AmSR 542 [aff 61 Hun 83, 15 NYS 446]; Peo. v. Tierney, 57 Hun 357, 10 NYS 940 [mod 126 N. Y. 166, 27 NE 269, 12 LRA 251]; Peo. v. New York Tax, etc., Comrs., 48 Barb. 157. N. D.-Northern Pac. R. Co. Richland County, 28 N. D. 172, 184, 148 NW 545, LRA1915A 129, AnnCas 1916E 574 [cit Cyc]. V. V. American Pa-Philadelphia Union Tel. Co., 167 Pa. 406, 31 A 628. S. D.-State v. State Bd. of Assessment, 3 S. D. 338, 53 NW 192. Va-Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Norfolk, 101 Va. 125, 43 SE 207. Wash-State v. Northern Express Co., 80 Wash. 309, 141 P 757, 76 Wash. 636, 136 P 1160. ville, etc., R. Co., 12 Lea 521. [a] Railroads may be taxed by taking that part of the value of the entire road which is measured by the proportion of the particular part in that state to the whole road. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 438, 14 SCt 1114, 38 L. ed. 1040 [aff 133 Ind. 609, 33 NE 443]; Pitts-burgh, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421, 14 SCt 1114, 38 L. ed. 1031 [aff 133 Ind. 625, 33 NE 432]; Columbus Southern R. Co. v. Wright, 151 U. S. 470, 14 SCt 396, 38 L. ed. 238; State R. Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 23 L. ed. 663; State v. Severance, 55 Mo. 378; Franklin County v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 12 Lea (Tenn.) 521. 40. Allen v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 191 U. S. 171, 24 SCt 39, 48 L. ed. 134; American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70, 19 SCt 599, 43 L. ed. 899 [aff 24 Colo. 291, 51 P 421, 65 AmSR 223, 56 LRA 89]; Marye v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 127 U. S. 117, 8 SCt 1037, 32 L. ed. 94; Reinhart v. McDonald, 76 Fed. 403; Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Church, 17 Colo. 1, 28 P 468, 31 AmSR 252; Canadian Pac. R. Co. v. King County, 90 Wash, 38, 155 P 416. In discussed.(1) [a] Situs speaking of a tax on rolling stock the court, in one case, said: "It is quite true, as the situs of the . Railroad Company is in 35 L. ed. 1035]; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S. 1, 16 SCt 1054, 41 L. ed. 49; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 158 U. S. 431, 15 SCt 896, 39 L. ed. 1043; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 15 SCt 268, 39 L. ed. 311 [aff 71 Miss. 555, 14 S 36, 42 AmSR 476]; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 439, 14 SCt 1122, 38 L. ed. 1041; Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U. S. 217, 12 SCt 121, 35 L. ed. 994; Massachusetts v. Western Union Tel. Co., 141 U. S. 40, 11 SCt 889, 35 L. ed. 628; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Hayward, 141 U. S. 36, 11 SCt 883, 35 L. ed. 621 [aff 107 Pa. 156]; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18, 11 SCt 876, 35 L. ed. 613 [aff 107 Pa. 156]; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atty.-Gen., 125 U. S. 530, 8 SCt 961, 31 L. ed. 790; State R. Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 23 L. ed. 663; Erie R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall. 492, 22 L. ed. 595; Minot v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 18 Wall. 206, 21 L. ed. 888 [aff 17 F. Cas. No. 9,645, 2 Abb. 323, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 555]; Wells v. Johnson, 205 Fed. 60; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 132 Fed. 629; Coulter v. Weir, 127 Fed. 897, 62 CCA 429. Conn.-State v. New York, etc., R. Co., 60 Conn. 326, 22 A 765. Ind.-Western Union Tel. Co. v. Maryland, that also, upon general principles, is the situs of all its personal property; but for purposes of taxation, as well as for other purposes, that situs may be fixed in whatever locality the property may be brought and used by its owner by the law of the place where it is found." Marye v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 127 U. S. 117, 123, 8 SCt 1037, 32 L. ed. 94. (2) And in another case the court said: "If they [the cars] had never passed beyond the limits of Pennsylvania, it could not be doubted that the State could tax them, like other property, within its borders, notwithstanding they were employed in interstate commerce. The fact that, instead of stopping at the state boundary, they cross that boundary in going out and coming back, cannot affect the power of the State to levy a tax upon them. This was a just and equitable method of. assessment." Pullman's Palace-car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18, 26, 11 SCt 876, 35 L. ed. 613. [b] Visible property of interstate railroad.-A state may levy a tax on the visible property of an interstate railroad company situated in the state. California v. Central Pac. R. Co., 127 U. S. 1, 8 SCt 1073, 32 L. ed. 150. Wis-State v. Patterson, 134 Wis. Taggart, 141 Ind. 281, 40 NE 1051, tor cars, owned by a transportation 214, 114 NW 441. [a] Unquestioned right."It has been again and again said by this court that while no State could imprivilege of doing the business of Interstate commerce, yet it had the unquestioned right to place a prop erty tax on engaged in Brewer, J., in or burden upon the N. J.-Tide Water Pipe Co. v. State Bd. of Assessors, 57 N. J. L. 516, the instrumentalities 31 A 220, 27 LRA 684 [aff 59 N. J. L. 269, 39 A 1114]. such commerce." Per V. Backus, 154 U. S. 439, 445, 14 SCt 1122, 38 L. ed. 1041 [aff 133 Ind. 513, Cleveland, etc., R. Co. S. D.-Ewert v. Taylor, 160 NW 797. Tenn.-Franklin County v. Nash V. [c] Sleeping cars and refrigeracompany, and loaned or leased to a railroad, may be taxed by a state. Union Refrigerator Transit Co. Lynch, 177 U. S. 149, 20 SCt 631, 44 L. ed. 708 [aff 18 Utah 378, 55 P 639, 48 LRA 790]; American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70. 19 SCt 599. 43 L. ed. 899 [aff 24 Colo. 291, 51 P 421, 65 AmSR 223, 56 LRA 89]; Covington v. Pullman Co., 121 Ky. 218. 89 SW 116, 28 KyL 199. 41. Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Lynch, 177 U. S. 149, 20 SCt terstate commerce will not render their taxation by a state invalid;42 but a state statute taxing locomotives, passenger and freight cars, etc., is unconstitutional and void, where the owner of such locomotives and cars has no domicile within the state, and the property has otherwise no situs in the state, and is used in interstate transportation.13 A local drainage assessment levied on a railroad right of way does not interfere with interstate commerce." [134] (b) Pipe Lines. It has been held that a state may tax foreign pipe line companies engaged in interstate transportation." 44 49 [135] (c) Vessels. A state may not tax vessels as instruments of commerce,* ,46 or when temporarily within state limits.47 Nor may a state tax foreignowned ships engaged in interstate or international commerce even for the purpose of meeting quarantine charges; but it may levy a tax on the interest of residents in vessels valued as personal property," although such vessels hold federal coasting licenses 50 and are engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.51 Also, vessels which, although engaged in interstate commerce, are employed in such commerce wholly within the limits of a state are subject to taxation in that state, although they may have been registered or enrolled at a port outside the limits of the state.52 [136] (d) Property of Telegraph Company. A state may tax the property of a telegraph company within its borders, although the company is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, 53 and has accepted the permissive grant of a federal statute to use the 631, 44 L. ed. 708 [aff 18 Utah 378, 55 P 639, 48 LRA 790]; American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70, 19 SCt 599, 43 L. ed. 899 [aff 24 Colo. 291, 51 P 421, 65 AmSR 223, 56 LRA 89]; Marye v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 127 U. S. 117, 8 SCt 1037, 32 L. ed. 94; Covington v. Pullman Co., 121 Ky. 218, 89 SW 116, 28 KyL 199. Taxation by unit rule see supra § 132. 42. Marye v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 127 U. S. 117, 8 SCt 1037, 32 L. ed. 94. 43. Allen v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 191 U. S. 171, 24 SCt 39, 48 L. ed. 134; Marye v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 127 U. S. 117, 8 SCt 1037, 32 L. ed. 94; Pickard v. Pullman Southern Car Co., 117 U. S. 34, 6 SCt 635, 29 L. ed. 785; Minot v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 18 Wall. (U. S.) 206, 21 L. ed. 888 [aff 17 F. Cas. No. 9,645, 2 Abb. 323, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 5551; Union Tank Line Co.'s App., 204 III. 347, 68 NE 504, 98 AmSR 221 (holding that cars of a foreign corporation, other than a railroad corporation, having its principal office in another state, which are merely in transit in Illinois for the purpose of bringing merchandise from another state into or through the state, are instruments of interstate commerce, and not subject to taxation in Illinois); Central R. Co. v. State Bd. of Assessors, 49 N. J. L. 1, 7 A 306; Bain v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 105 N. C. 363, 11 SE 311, 18 AmSR 912, 8 LRA 299. 44. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Richland County, 28 N. D. 172. 148 NW 545, LRA1915A 129 and note, AnnCas 1916E 574 and note. 45. Tide Water Pipe Co. v. State Bd. of Assessors, 57 N. J. L. 516, 31 A 220, 27 LRA 684 [aff 59 N. J. L. 269. 39 A 1114]. 46. Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273, 23 L. ed. 412. For tonnage tax see infra $ 162. 47. Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 471, 21 L. ed. 303; Hays v. Pacific Mail SS. Co., 17 How. (Ù. S.) 596. 15 L. ed. 254 (holding that a state may not tax a vessel tempo military and post roads of the United States.54 [137] (e) Dredges. Where dredges are not designed for use in the carrying trade, and are not entitled to enrollment and registry, they are not instruments of interstate or foreign commerce, although they are employed in work intended to aid navigation and commerce, and they may be subjected to taxation in a state other than that of the residence of their owner, when kept and employed in such state for an indefinite period of time.55 [§ 138] (f) Bridges.56 A state acts within its powers and does not attempt to regulate commerce among the states when it taxes that part of a bridge which is within the limits of the state, although the bridge connects two states, and is used as an instrument of interstate commerce,57 and although the bridge has been declared a federal post road.58 [139] (g) Property of Insurance Companies.59 As insurance is not commerce," 60 no taxation of the property of insurance companies will be held invalid on the ground that it is an unconstitutional regulation of commerce.61 [140] c. Capital, Credits, and Securities.62 Without infringing on the power of congress to regulate commerce, a state may tax the claim of a resident creditor against a nonresident debtor,63 credits and bills receivable representing the proceeds of the sales of imported goods in original packages, stock of a foreign corporation whose business consists partly of foreign commerce, and partly of domestic commerce," and money invested in ves 65 rarily within its borders for the pur- | Co., 90 Fed. 360. pose of discharging and receiving 56. License tax on toll bridge see passengers and freight). 48. Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 581, 22 L. ed. 201. 49. Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273, 25 L. ed. 412 [aff 9 W. Va. 170, 27 AmR 552]: Battle v. Mobile, 9 Ala. 234, 44 AmD 438; Howell v. State, 3 Gill (Md.) 14. 50. Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273. 25 L. ed. 412; Battle v. Mobile, 9 Ala. 234, 44 AmD 438. 51. 457. 52. Gunther v. Baltimore, 55 Md. Old Dominion SS. Co. v. Virginia, 198 U. S. 299, 25 SCt 686, 49 L. ed. 1059, 3 AnnCas 1100 and note [aff 102 Va. 576, 46 SE 783, 102 Am SR 855]. 53. U. S.-Western Union Tel. Co. v. Missouri, 190 U. S. 412, 23 SCt 730, 47 L. ed. 1116 [aff 165 Mo. 502, 65 SW 775]; Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160, 23 SCt 817, 47 L. ed. 995; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S. 1, 16 SCt 1054, 41 L. ed. 449; Leloup v. Mobile Port, 127 U. S. 640, 8 SCt 1380, 32 L. ed. 311; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atty. Gen., 125 U. S. 530, 8 SCt 961, 31 L. ed. 790; Sanford v. Poe, 69 Fed. 546. 16 CCA 305, 60 LRA 641 and note [aff 64 Fed. 9, and aff 165 U. S. 194, 17 SCt 305. 41 L. ed. 683]. Mont-State v. Rocky Mountain Bell Tel. Co., 27 Mont. 394, 71 P 311. N. Y.-Peo. v. Reardon, 184 N. Y. 431, 77 NE 970, 112 AmSR 628, 8 LRANS 314, 6 AnnCas 515; Peo. v. Tierney. 57 Hun 357, 10 NYS 940 [mod 126 N. Y. 166, 27 NE 269, 12 LRA 251]. Pa.-Taylor Borough v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 202 Pa. 583. 52 A 128. Va.-Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Norfolk, 101 Va. 125, 43 SE 207. [a] A tax on the wires of a telegraph company is valid. Philadelphia v. American Union Tel. Co., 167 Pa. 406. 31 A 628. 54. New England Tel. Co. v. Essex. 206 Fed 926; Ferguson v. McDonald, 66 Fla. 494. 63 S 915. 55. McRae V. Bowers Dredging infra 141 note 71 [a] (3). 57. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. V. Board of Public Works, 172 U. S. 32. 19 SCt 90, 43 L. ed. 354; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 141 U. S. 679, 12 SCt 114, 35 L. ed. 900 [aff 99 Ky. 623, 31 SW 486, 17 KyL 389, 29 LRA 73]; Louisville Bridge Co. v. Louisville, 81 Ky. 180, 5 KyL 16. 58. Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 150, 17 SCt 532, 41 L. ed. 953. 59. Stamp tax on marine insurance policy see infra § 158. Tax on premiums see infra § 156 note 49 [a]. 60. See supra § 36. 61. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Lewis, etc., County, 28 Mont. 484. 72 P 982, 98 AmSR 572; Peo. v. National F. Ins. Co., 27 Hun (N. Y.) 188. 62. License or franchise tax based on capital situated in several states and employed in interstate commerce see infra 154. Taxation of capital representing property situated in another state see Taxation [37 Cyc 819]. 63. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491, 25 L. ed. 558; Atlanta Nat. Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Stewart, 109 Ga. 80, 35 SE 73; Com. v. Lehigh Coal, etc., Co., 162 Pa. 603, 29 A 664: Philadelphia Sav. Fund Soc. v. Yard, 9 Pa. 359. 64. Peo. v. Wells, 107 App. Div. 15, 95 NYS 100 [aff 184 N. Y. 275. 77 NE 19, 121 AmSR 840, 12 LRANS 905 (aff 208 U. S. 14, 28 SCt 193, 52 L. ed. 370)] (holding that such credits or bills receivable are taxable as capital invested in the state, within L. [1896] p 800 c 908 § 7). [a] Debts due a foreign corpora tion on open accounts for imported goods sold in original packages are taxable against the corporation. Peo v. O'Donnell, 62 Misc. 560, 115 NYS 140. 65. Darnell v. Indiana, 226 U. S 390. 33 SCt 120. 57 L. ed. 267 (aff 174 Ind. 143, 90 NE 769]: Peo. Roberts, 36 App. Div. 597, 55 NYS |