Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/633

597 » JURISDICTION TO TAX 597 In many other cases cited by the appellant there was no statute expressly taxing mortgages at the situs of the land; and although the opinions in some of them took a wider range, the only ques- tion in judgment in any of them was one of the construction, not of the constitutionality, of a statute — of the intention, not of the power, of the legislature. Since in taxing the mortgage the state is taxing an interest in the land, it seems clear that the mortgagor's tax can only cover the value of the equity of redemption; the sum of the taxes assessed against the interests of the two cannot exceed the amount of the tax on the land itself. This is in most of the cases insisted upon as a condition of vahdity; ^^ and a contrary intimation ^^ must be regarded as unsound. III. Tax on Chattels A sovereign has jurisdiction over every chattel situated within his territory, and may therefore lay a tax upon it although the owner is not domiciled within the territory,"*^ and even though it is in the hands of a lessee.^^ The jurisdiction is based on the power over the res; and though it may as a matter of form be assessed "to the owner" it is collectible only out of the assets,^^ and will not support a personal action against the nonresident owner. A few states do not, unless a statute expressly so provide, tax the chattels of a nonresident owner.^° On the other hand, a few <* Savings & Loan Society v. Multnomah County, 169 U. S. 421 (1898); Kinney v. Treasurer & Receiver General, 207 Mass. 368, 93 N. E. 586 (191 1); Common Council of Detroit v. Assessors, 91 Mich. 78, 51 N. W. 787 (1892). " Coe V. Errol, 116 U. S. 517 (1886); McCutchen v. Rice County, 2 McCrary (U. S.) 337, 7 Fed. 558 (1881);' Mills v. Thornton, 26 111. 300 (1861); Rieman v. Shepard, 27 Ind. 288 (1866); Hudson v. Miller, 10 Kan. App. 532, 63 Pac. 21 (1900); Hull V. Johnson, 10 Kan. App. 565, 63 Pac. 455 (1901); Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 44 La. Ann. 760, 11 So. 91 (1892); Scollard v. American Felt Co., 194 Mass. 127, 80 N. E. 233 (1907); Tobey i). Kip, 214 Mass. 477, loi N. E. 998 (1913); McCormick v. Fitch, 14 Minn. 252 (1869); State v. William Deering Co., 56 Minn. 24, 57 N. W. 313 (1893); Winkley »• Newton, 67 N. H. 80, 36 Atl. 610 (1891); John Hancock Ice Co. V. Rose, 67 N. J. L. 86, 50 Atl. 364 (1901); Matter of King, 30 N. Y. Misc. 575, 63 N. Y. Supp. HOC (1900); People v. Dimckel, 69 N. Y. Misc. 361, 125 N. Y. •Supp. 38s (1910). " Scollard v. American Felt Co., 194 Mass. 127, 80 N. E. 233 (1907).
 * In Allen v. National State Bank, 92 Md. 509, 48 Atl. 78 (1901).
 * Lamson C. S. S. Co. v. Boston, 170 Mass. 354, 49 N. E. 630 (1898).
 * o Phelps V. Thurston, 47 Conn. 477 (1880); Leonard v. New Bedford, 16 Gray