Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/668

632 632 HARVARD LAW REVIEW in In re Cigala, ^^ this is because "you cannot get it . . . except by an action in England. That is the true test; in order to recover the property you must come to England." The proper place to claim an interest in trust property is at the seat of the trust. Just what is meant by the seat of the trust cannot here be considered. It is not necessarily the domicile of the trustee.^® That the interest in the trust fund was transferred as the result of the exercise of a power of appointment does not alter the case; the transfer is taxable at the seat of the trust.^*° In a state which levies an inheritance at the domicile of the de- cedent upon all personal property, the interest of a domiciled de- cedent in a foreign trust fund is of course taxable.^^^ The British probate duty was levied upon all property which should come to an EngUsh court to be administered. The right of administration depends upon the situation of the property within the jurisdiction at the moment of the decedent's death; no probate duty could be levied upon property brought into the jurisdiction after the death, even though it was brought in to be administered there.^ Probate duty was, however, due on everything within the jurisdiction at the death of the decedent which should be ad- ministered there. This covers not only ordinary chattels, but bonds of foreign governments ^^ and certificates of stock in foreign corporations,^** since they are marketable securities within the kingdom, transferable there; shares in English companies ;^^^ and an undivided share in the residue of an English estate not yet administered, though that estate consisted largely of foreign property .^^^ Furthermore, since administration may be granted 248 (1886); Attorney-General v. Campbell, L. R. 5 H. L. 524 (1872); In re Cigala, 7 Ch. D. 3SI (1878); In re Badart's Trusts, L. R. 10 Eq. 288 (1870); Lyall v. Lyall, L. R. IS Eq. I (1872); Re Smith's Trusts, 10 L. T. R. 598 (1864). «8 7 Ch. D. 351 (1878). 239 Douglas County v. Kountze, 84 Neb. 506, 121 N. W. 593 (1909). 2*"^ Matter of Lord, in App. Div. 152, 97 N. Y. Supp. 553 (1906), affirmed 186 N. Y. 549, 79 N. E. mo (1906); Re WaUop's Trusts, i De G., J. & S. 656 (1864); In re Lovelace, 4 De G. & J. 340 (1859). 2« Lines's Estate, 155 Pa. 378, 26 Atl. 728 (1893). 2« Attorney-General v. Hope, 2 CI. & F. 84 (1834); Attorney-General v. Dimond, I Cr.& J. 356(1831). ^ Attorney-General v. Bouwens, 4 M. & W. 171 (1838). 2« Stem V. Queen, [1896] i Q. B. 211. "■"^ Sudeley v. Attorney-General, [1897] A. C. 11.
 * ^5 New York Breweries Co. v. Attorney-General, [1899] A. C. 62.