burgh, 104 U. S. 78; Amesbury Nail Factory Co. v. Weed, 17 Massachusetts, 53; Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264; Louisville &c. R. R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Co., 197 U. S. 430. Subject to these individual exceptions, the rule is that in classifying property for taxation some benefit to the property taxed is a controlling consideration, and a plain abuse of this power will sometimes justify a judicial interference. Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269. It is often said protection and payment of taxes are correlative obligations.

It is also essential to the validity of a tax that the property shall be within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing power. Not only is the operation of state laws limited to persons and property within the boundaries of the State, but property which is wholly and exclusively within the jurisdiction of another State, receives none of the protection for which the tax is supposed to be the compensation. This rule receives its most familiar illustration in the cases of land which, to be taxable, must be within the limits of the State. Indeed, we know of no case where a legislature has assumed to impose a tax upon land within the jurisdiction of another State, much less where such action has been defended by any court. It is said by this court in the Foreign-held Bond case, 15 Wall. 300, 319, that no adjudication should be necessary to establish so obvious a proposition as that property lying beyond the jurisdiction of a State is not a subject upon which her taxing power can be legitimately exercised.

The argument against the taxability of land within the jurisdiction of another State applies with equal cogency to tangible personal property beyond the jurisdiction. It is not only beyond the sovereignty of the taxing State, but does not and cannot receive protection under its laws. True, a resident owner may receive an income from such property, but the same may be said of real estate within a foreign jurisdiction. Whatever be the rights of the State with respect to the taxation of such income, it is clearly beyond its power to tax the land from which the income is derived. As we said in Louis

ville &c. Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, 188 U. S. 385, 396: "While the mode, form and extent of taxation are, speaking generally, limited only by the wisdom of the legislature, that power is limited by principle inhering in the very nature of constitutional Government, namely, that the taxation imposed must have relation to a subject within the jurisdiction of the taxing Government." See also McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 429; Hays v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 17 How. 596, 599; St. Louis v. Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423, 429, 431; Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall. 471, 476.

Respecting this, there is an obvious distinction between the tangible and intangible property, in the fact that the latter is held secretly; that there is no method by which its existence or ownership can be ascertained in the State of its situs, except perhaps in the case of mortgages or shares of stock. So if the owner be discovered, there is no way by which he can be reached by process in a State other than that of his domicil, or the collection of the tax otherwise enforced. In this class of cases the tendency of modern authorities is to apply the maxim mobilia sequuntur personam, and to hold that the property may be taxed at the domicil of the owner as the real situs of the debt, and also, more particularly in the case of mortgages, in the State where the property is retained. Such has been the repeated rulings of this court. Tappan v. Merchants' National Bank, 19 Wall. 490; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491; Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U. S. 592; Sturges v. Carter, 114 U. S. 511; Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S. 730; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189.

If this occasionally results in double taxation, it much oftener happens that this class of property escapes altogether. In the case of intangible property, the law does not look for absolute equality, but to the much more practical consideration of collecting the tax upon such property, either in the State of the domicil or the situs. Of course, we do not enter into a consideration of the question, so much discussed by political economists, of the double taxation involved in taxing the property from

which these securities arise, and also the burdens upon such property, such as mortgages, shares of stock and the like-the securities themselves.

The arguments in favor of the taxation of intangible property at the domicil of the owner have no application to tangible property. The fact that such property is visible, easily found and difficult to conceal, and the tax readily collectible, is so cogent an argument for its taxation at its situs, that of late there is a general consensus of opinion that it is taxable in the State where it is permanently located and employed and where it receives its entire protection, irrespective of the domicil of the owner. We have, ourselves, held in a number of cases that such property permanently located in a State other than that of its owner is taxable there. Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622; Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517; Pullman's Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Massachusetts, 125 U. S. 530; Railroad Company v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5; American Refrigerator Transit Company v. Hall, 174 U. S. 70; Pittsburg Coal Company v. Bates, 156 U. S. 577; Old Dominion Steamship Company v. Virginia, 198 U. S. 299. We have also held that, if a corporation be engaged in running railroad cars into, through and out of the State, and having at all times a large number of cars within the State, it may be taxed by taking as the basis of assessment such proportion of its capital stock as the number of miles of railroad over which its cars are run within the State bears to the whole number of miles in all the States over which its cars are run. Pullman's Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18.

There are doubtless cases in the state reports announcing the principle that the ancient maxim of mobilia sequuntur personam still applies to personal property, and that it may be taxed at the domicil of the owner, but upon examination they all or nearly all relate to intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, notes and other choses in action. We are cited to none. applying this rule to tangible property, and after a careful examination have not been able to find any wherein the ques

tion is squarely presented, unless it be that of Wheaton v. Mickel, 63 N. J. Law, 525, where a resident of New Jersey was taxed for certain coastwise and seagoing vessels located in Pennsylvania. It did not appear, however, that they were permanently located there. The case turned upon the construction of a state statute, and the question of constitutionality was not raised. If there are any other cases holding that the maxim applies to tangible personal property, they are wholly exceptional, and were decided at a time when personal property was comparatively of small amount, and consisted principally of stocks in trade, horses, cattle, vehicles and vessels engaged in navigation. But in view of the enormous increase of such property since the introduction of railways and the growth of manufactures, the tendency has been in recent years to treat it as having a situs of its own for the purpose of taxation, and correlatively to exempt at the domicil of its owner. The cases in the state reports upon this subject usually turn upon the construction of local statutes granting or withholding the right to tax extra-territorial property, and do not involve the constitutional principle here invoked. Many of them, such, for instance, as Blood v. Sayre, 17 Vermont 609; Preston v. Boston, 12 Pickering, 7; Pease v. Whitney, 8 Massachusetts 93; Gray v. Kettel, 12 Massachusetts, 161, turn upon the taxability of property where the owner is located in one, and the property in another, of two jurisdictions within the same State, sometimes even involving double taxation, and are not in point here.

One of the most valuable of the state cases is that of Hoyt v. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 N. Y. 224, where, under the New York statute, it was held that the tangible property of a resident actually situated in another State or country was not to be included in the assessment against him. The statute declared that "all lands and all personal estate within this State" were liable for taxation, and it was said in a most instructive. opinion by Chief Justice Comstock that the language could not be obscured by the introduction of a legal fiction about the

situs of personal estate. It was said that this fiction involved the necessary consequence that "goods and chattels actually within this State are not here in any legal sense, or for any legal purpose, if the owner resides abroad;" and that the maxim mobilia sequuntur personam may only be resorted to when convenience and justice so require. The proper use of legal fiction is to prevent injustice, according to the maxim "in fictione juris semper æquitas existat." See Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U. S. 578; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 206. "No fiction," says Blackstone, "shall extend to work an injury; its proper operation being to prevent a mischief or remedy an inconvenience, which might result from a general rule of law." The opinion argues with great force against the injustice of taxing extra-territorial property, when it is also taxable in the State where it is located. Similar cases to the same effect are People v. Smith, 88 N. Y. 576; City of New Albany v. Meekin, 3 Indiana, 481; Wilkey v. City of Pekin, 19 Illinois, 160; Johnson v. Lexington, 14 B. Monroe, 521; Catlin v. Hull, 21 Vermont, 152; Nashua Bank v. Nashua, 46 N. H. 389.

In Weaver's Estate v. State, 110 Iowa, 328, it was held by the Supreme Court of Iowa that a herd of cattle within the State of Missouri, belonging to a resident of Iowa, was not subject to an inheritance tax upon his decease. In Commonwealth v. American Dredging Company, 122 Penna. St. 386, it was held that a Pennsylvania corporation was taxable in respect to certain dredges and other similar vessels which were built, but not permanently retained outside of the State. It was said that the non-taxability of tangible personal property located permanently outside of the State was not "because of the technical principle that the situs of personal property is where the domicil of the owner is found. This rule is doubtless true as to intangible property such as bonds, mortgages and other evidences of debt. But the better opinion seems to be that it does not hold in the case of visible tangible personal property permanently located in another State. In such cases it is taxable within the jurisdiction where found and is exempt