The same principle will apply to railway cars and locomotives.
They would be taxable at the company yard or roundhouse.54
And so of other mobilia at the garage, dock, or stable where
they are usually kept when not in use."5

Notes, Bonds and Choses in Action-Situs of.

Much contention has arisen over the situs of stocks and bonds, franchises, notes, and other choses in action. The general rule with regard to such classes of personalty is that they are taxable at the owner's domicile, if he be a natural person.56 But it has been held that where the owner, a nonresident, habitually leaves such property on deposit in the hands of an

A. 518; City of Mobile v. Baldwin, 57 Ala. 61, 29 Am. Rep. 712; Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 471, 21 L. Ed. 303; City of St. Joseph ex rel. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Saville, 39 Mo. 460; Perry v. Torrence, 8 Ohio, 521, 32 Am. Dec. 725.

54 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Hitchcock Co., 40 Neb. 781, 59 N. W. 358 Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Tax Ct., 50 Md. 397; Randall V. Elwell, 52 N. Y. 521, 11 Am. Rep. 747; Coe v. Railroad Co., 10 Ohio St. 372, 75 Am. Dec. 518; Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall. (U. S.) 609, 17 L. Ed. 886.

The value of the rolling stock of a corporation is capital employed within the state, unless such stock is used exclusively outside the state. People v. Knight, 173 N. Y. 255, 65 N. E. 1102; Winton Coal Co. v. Commissioners (Pa. Com. Pl.) 1 Lack. Leg. N. 195.

55 St. Louis v. Ferry Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 423, 20 L. Ed. 192; City of Sacramento v. Stage Co., 12 Cal. 134.

56 Corry v. Baltimore, 96 Md. 310, 53 Atl. 942; City of Marquette V. Land Co. (Mich.) 92 N. W. 934; Mackay v. San Francisco, 113 Cal. 392, 45 Pac. 696; In re Fair's Estate, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 184. A deposit in a bank is a debt due the depositor, and its situs for the purposes of taxation is in the state of the depositor's domicile. Pyle v. Brenneman, 122 Fed. 787, 60 C. C. A. 409; Clason v. New Orleans, 46 La. Ann. 1, 14 South. 306; Pacific Coast Sav. Soc. v. San Francisco, 133 Cal. 14, 65 Pac. 16. In People v. Knight, 173 N. Y. 255, 65 N. E. 1102, it was held that where a domestic railroad owns the stock of a domestic transportation company which employs its capital outside the state, such stock constitutes no part of the railroad company's capital stock. Where money belonging to an estate was deposited in the city where one of three executors resided, one of the others being a nonresident, it was subject to taxation in such

agent for management, it is taxable at the agent's domicile; 57 and in case of corporations, whether domestic or foreign, its local franchises are taxable where they are used; 58 and its

city. People v. Feitner, 167 N. Y. 1, 60 N. E. 265, 82 Am. St. Rep. 698.

The capital stock of a corporation is subject to taxation only in the state of its domicile. Foster-Cherry Commission Co. v. Caskey,

66 Kan. 600, 72 Pac. 268. Capital invested by a nonresident of the state in a seat in the New York Stock Exchange is property taxable in the state. In re Glendinning's Estate, 171 N. Y. 684, 64 N. E. 1121; People v. Commissioners, 39 Misc. Rep. 282, 79 N. Y. Supp. 485. See People v. Feitner, 77 App. Div. 189, 78 N. Y. Supp. 1017. Contra, Reat v. People, 201 Ill. 469, 66 N. E. 242; Lee v. Dawson, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 365.

The sovereign power which gives the shares of corporations their being can also give them situs within its territory for the purposes of taxation. State v. Insurance Co., 70 Conn. 590, 40 Atl. 465, 66 Am. St. Rep. 138; Dykes v. Mortgage Co. (judgment) 2 Kan. App. 217, 43 Pac. 268. See Tappan v. Bank, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 490, 22 L. Ed. 189; Cleveland, P. & A. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. (U. S.)) 300, 21 L. Ed. 179; Sturges v. Carter, 114 U. S. 521, 5 Sup. Ct. 1014, 29 L. Ed. 240; City of Davenport v. Railroad Co., 12 Iowa, 539; Collins v. Miller, 43 Ga. 336; Johnson v. Oregon City, 3 Or. 13; Hunter v. Supervisors, 33 Iowa, 376, 11 Am. Rep. 132; Cornwall v. Todd. 38 Conn. 443; Mead v. Roxboro, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 362; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491, 25 L. Ed. 558.

57 People v. Wells, 41 Misc. Rep. 144, 83 N. Y. Supp. 936; Northwestern Lumber Co. v. Chehalis Co., 25 Wash. 95, 64 Pac. 909, 54 L. R. A. 212, 87 Am. St. Rep. 747; Catlin v. Hull, 21 Vt. 152; People v. Ogdensburgh, 48 N. Y. 390; Wilcox v. Ellis, 14 Kan. 588, 19 Am. Rep. 107; State, on Petition of Taylor, v. County Court, 47 Mo. 594; Tazewell County Sup'rs v. Davenport, 40 Ill. 197; South Nashville St. Ry. Co. v. Morrow, 87 Tenn. 406, 11 S. W. 348, 2 L. R. A. 853. Money or property held by an ancillary administrator is subject to taxation in the state granting such administration, where taxes are not paid on it at the principal place of administration. Dorris v. Miller, 105 Iowa, 564, 75 N. W. 482.

58 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Norfolk (Va.) 43 S. E. 207; London & San Francisco Bank v. Block (C. C.) 117 Fed. 900; Rocheblave Market Co. v. New Orleans, 110 La. 529, 34 South. 665; City of Detroit v. Donovan, 127 Mich. 604, 86 N. W. 1032; Billinghurst v. Spink Co.,

notes and other choses in action at the place where they are
usually kept."
Adjacent Lands.

60

The power of the state is recognized in apportioning taxation for local improvements to include in the taxation district with a municipality adjoining lands to be benefited by the improvement; and thus to create a special taxing district quoad hoc. For the administration of this improvement the municipality is usually appointed the governmental agency, and empowered through its existing instrumentalities to assess, levy, and collect taxes for the improvement, not only upon lands within, but lands beyond its local boundaries. The power of taxation in such cases is confined to the special levy for the improvement.

STATE MAY IMPOSE.

166. The state, in the exercise of its sovereign power, may impose special taxes upon the municipality for governmental, but not for strictly municipal, purposes.

In creating a municipal corporation and conferring upon it the taxing power, the state does not and cannot surrender its

5 S. D. 84, 58 N. W. 272; Manufacturers' Ins. Co. v. Loud, 99 Mass. 146, 96 Am. Dec. 715.

The state board of equalization in assessing railroad property should include the value of the franchises with the taxable property. State v. Savage, 65 Neb. 714, 91 N. W. 716.

59 People v. Barker, 84 App. Div. 469, 83 N. Y. Supp. 33; Armour Packing Co. v. Augusta (Ga.) 45 S. E. 424; Orange & A. R. Co. v. Alexandria, 17 Grat. (Va.) 185; Ontario Bank v. Bunnell, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 186; British Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioners, 31 N. Y. 32. Contra, Home Ins. Co. v. Board, 48 La. Ann. 451, 19 South. 280.

60 Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345, 8 Sup. Ct. 921, 31 L. Ed. 763; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, 111 U. S. 701, 4 Sup. Ct. 663, 28 L. Ed. 569; Town of Macon v. Patty, 57 Miss. 378, 34 Am. Rep. 451; PEOPLE v. BROOKLYN, 4 N. Y. 419, 55 Am. Dec. 266.

61 In re House Bill No. 165, 15 Colo. 593, 26 Pac. 141.

STARFURY LOW

62

own inherent sovereignty over the people and property within the municipal boundaries. No municipal power can exist in perpetuity. The legislature exercising the sovereign function of legislation may not only repeal the charter, and thus destroy the municipal life, but, since the greater includes the less, it may withdraw powers conferred in whole or in part, and may exercise such powers itself. The inherent power

of taxation possessed by a state may be exercised by the legislature upon property within as well as without the municipal boundaries; and for any strictly governmental purpose it is conceded that the state may tax municipal property not only for general objects, but by special assessment for local improvements.65

66

It is also generally recognized by the courts that for purely municipal purposes the municipality may not be taxed by the state without its consent, though upon this subject the cases are somewhat discordant; but there is great variety of decision in the various cases determining what is a governmental and what is a municipal purpose. The two leading cases in the United States representing these discordant views are those commonly known as the Philadelphia City Hall Case 7 and the Detroit Park Case,68 heretofore discussed. In the former of these it was ruled that the state might compel the city to pay for the erection of "an enormous pile which surpasses. the town halls and cathedrals of the Middle Ages in extent. if not in grandeur"; " and in the latter that the state could

67

62 MERIWETHER v. GARRETT, 102 U. S. 472, 26 L. Ed. 197; PEOPLE v. MORRIS, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 325; Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U. S. 548, 25 L. Ed. 710.

63 Williamson v. New Jersey, 130 U. S. 189, 9 Sup. Ct. 453, 32 L. Ed. 915.

64 Ante, §§ 68, 69.

65 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 752.

66 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. §§ 72, 73; Cooley, Const. Lim. (6th Ed.) 284, 285.

67 PERKINS v. SLACK, 86 Pa. 283.

68 PEOPLE v. DETROIT, 28 Mich. 228, 15 Am. Rep. 202.

69 1 Hare, Const. Law, 630.

not compel the city to pay for the purchase and improvement of a city park.70 Between these divergent views of legislative control over municipal corporations is found a variety of decisions in divers states as to the legislative power to impose taxes upon a municipality, which generally recognize the doctrine above stated, but differ in its application to particular cases.71

167. The municipality may exercise the power of taxation expressly conferred upon it only within constitutional limitations.

This doctrine is so self-evident as scarcely to need elucidation; but much contention has arisen over express charter powers of taxation granted by the legislature, and exercised by a municipality in strict conformity therewith. In practical operation, however, it was sometimes found that this not only wrought injustice, but produced results violative of constitutional protection. In some of these the taxation would not be equal and uniform 72 as required by the organic law. In oth

70 PEOPLE V. DETROIT, supra. Nor build a courthouse. Callam V. Saginaw, 50 Mich. 7, 14 N. W. 677.

71 City of Baltimore v. Rietz, 50 Md. 574; PRINCE v. CROCKER, 166 Mass. 347, 44 N. E. 446, 32 L. R. A. 610; In re Adams, 165 Mass. 497, 43 N. E. 682; Pumphrey v. Baltimore, 47 Md. 145, 28 Am. Rep. 446; PEOPLE v. BATCHELLOR, 53 N. Y. 128, 13 Am. Rep. 480; Jefferson County Com'rs v. People, 5 Neb. 136; Jensen v. Supervisors, 47 Wis. 298, 2 N. W. 320.

72 Oliver v. Washington Mills, 11 Allen (Mass.) 268; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406, 20 Am. Rep. 654; Gatlin v. Tarboro, 78 N. C. 119; State v. Bank, 41 La. Ann. 329, 6 South. 582; Daly v. Morgan, 69 Md. 460, 16 Atl. 287, 1 L. R. A. 757; Marsh v. Supervisors, 42 Wis. 502.

Uniform taxation requires that the tax must be uniform throughout the territory to which it is applicable. Day v. Roberts (Va.) 43 S. E. 362; State v. Savage, 65 Neb. 714, 91 N. W. 716; W. C. Peacock & Co. v. Pratt, 121 Fed. 772, 58 C. C. A. 48; Adams v. Bank of OxING.CORP.-31