Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/646

610 6io HARVARD LAW REVIEW funds were held by its treasurer in Ottawa, it was held that it was taxable on its "funds and credits" in Fulton."^ So it is with profits or proceeds of the business in the form of accounts due to the business; they are taxable where the business is carried on. Thus where a foreign corporation carried on a ware- house in Kentucky, storage charges due to the corporation are taxable in Kentucky."' The commonest appUcation of this principle is the case where a fund is invested in a foreign state, through an agent, in local loans, new investments being constantly made as income is re- ceived from the fund or as old investments are paid. The leading case' on this point is the case of Catlin v. Eull}^^ In that case one Hammond, a resident of New York, who owned a large number of promissory notes against residents of the town of Orwell, in Ver- mont, placed these notes in the hands of a resident of Orwell as his agent. The agent was to manage the business of collecting and reloaning interest and principal in the interest of the owner. A tax was imposed upon the notes. It was argued that the tax was invalid on the ground that the debts being personal property had no situs, apart from the domicile of the owner. The court, how- ever, held that where the property in fact was, the law had power to tax it. The court did not discuss at length the question of whether the notes really had a situs in the state, assuming that question. The case was at once generally followed."^ 1" People V. Mystic Workers of the World, 270 HI. 496, no N. E. 907 (1915). "' Commonwealth v. Kentucky D. & W. Co., 143 Ky. 314, 136 S. W. 1032 (191 1). "< 21 Vt. 152 (1849). "5 Bristol V. Washington County, 177 U. S. 133 (1899); M'Cutcheon v. Rice Coimty, 7 Fed. 558 (1881); Walker v. Jack, 88 Fed. 576 (1898); Battle v. Mobile, 9 Ala. 234, (1846); People V. Home Ins. Co., 29 Cal. 533 (1866); Board of Supervisors v. Daven- port, 40 111. 197 (1866); Goldgart v. People, 106 lU. 25 (1883); People v. Davis, 112 111. 272 (1884); Hayward v. Board of Review, 189 111. 234, 59 N. E. 601 (1901); New Albany v. Meekin, 3 Ind. 481 (1852); Foresman v. Byrns, 68 Ind. 247 (1879) (semble); Hathaway v. Edwards, 42 Ind. App. 22, 85 N. E. 28 (1908); Hunter v. Board of Super- dsors, 33 la. 376 (1871) (semble); Hutchinson v. Board of Supervisors, 66 la. 35, 23 N. W. 249 (1885); Buck V. Miami County (Kan.), 173 Pac. 344 (1918); Wilcox v. Ellis, 14 Kan. 588 (1875); Fisher v. Rush County, 19 Kan. 414 (1877); In re Jefferson, 35 Minn. 215, 28 N. W. 256 (1886); State v. London & N. W. A. Mtg. Co., 80 Minn. 277, 83 N. W. 339 (1900); State v. St. Louis County Court, 47 Mo. 594 (1871) {semble); Finch V. York County, 19 Neb. 50, 26 N. W. 589 (1886); Bowman v. Boyd, 21 Nev. 281, 30 Pac. 823 (1892); People r. Gardner, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 352 (1868); Williams v. Wayne County, 78 N. Y. 561 (1879); Boardman v. Tompkins County, 85 N. Y. 359 (1881); Redmond v. Commissioners, 87 N. C. 122 (1882); Poppleton v. Yamhill County,