JURISDICTION TO TAX 599 state which does not tax tangible property at the owner's domi- cile. ^^ So where by statute a foreign insurance company is re- quired to deposit bonds with the State as a condition of doing business, the bonds are taxable where deposited.^^ Here, as every- where, however, bonds or notes situated only temporarily within the state are not taxable.^^ There is no little recent authority holding that a certificate of stock is in the same class as a bond, and is taxable where it is found, though both the stockholder and corporation are non- resident. "They may be treated as property from the function they perform and the use that is made of them." ^^ Mr. Justice Wright in Stern v. Queen ^° said in such a case : "There is in this country ... a document the existence of which vouches and is necessary for vouching the title of some one to the foreign share, so that in the absence of that docimient no one at all could es- tablish a title to the share. It is found by the case that the certificates are currently marketable here as securities for that share, and the dividends payable on that share; it is found, in fact, that the delivery of the certificate in this country ipso facto affects the title in a sense that it entitles the transferee to all the transferor's rights. It follows that the certificate itself has some operative power here, and it seems to me not to be within the ancient rule that a simple contract debt or mere evidences of a simple contract debt are supposed to exist only at the place of the debtor's residence. It being a marketable security operative, though not completely operative, to pass the title, and having a marketable value here, I think that it is itself a document which is a document of value." (1911); Hall V. Miller, 102 Texas, 289, 115 S. W. 1168 (1909), affirming no S. W. 165 (Tex. Civ. App.) (1908). Contra, Howell v. Gordon, 127 Mich. 517, 86 N. W. 1042 (1901); Jack V. Walker, 79 Fed. 138 (1897); Myers ». Seaberger, 45 Ohio St. 232, 12 N. E. 796 (1887). " Wilcox V. Ellis, 14 Kan. 588 (1875); Mayor of Baltimore v. Hussey, 67 Md. 112, 9 Atl. 19 (1887); State V. Howard Covmty Court, 69 Mo. 454 (1879); Leavell v. Blades, 237 Mo. 695, 141 S. W. 893 (1911). " Western Assurance Co. v. Halliday, no Fed. 259 (1901), 127 Fed. 830 (1903); People V. Home Insurance Co. 29 Cal. 533 (1866); British C.L. Ins. Co. v. Commission- ers, 31 N. Y. 32 (1865); State v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 35 Tex. App. 214, 80 S. W. 544 (1904)-
- Herron v. Keeran, 59 Ind. 472 (1877); Matter of Gibbes, 84 App. Div. 510, 83
N. Y. Supp. S3 (1903), affirmed 176 N. Y. 565, 68 N. E. 1117 (1903). " People V. Reardon, 184 N. Y. 431, 77 N. E. 970 (1906); Stem v. Queen, [1896] iQ. B. 211. •0 [1896] I Q. B. 211, 218.
