JURISDICTION TO TAX 6oi thing, and is capable of taxation at the place where the exchange is, though owned by a nonresident; ^^ and the same thing is true of membership in a produce exchange.®^ Goodwill also may be taxed at the place of business,^® unless it is held that the tax act excludes it from taxation. ^° There would seem to be suflScient reason for assigning an actual situs to a judgment. For though the obligation of a judgment is a mere chose in action, the judgment itself, out of which the obliga- tion arises, is physically enrolled upon the books of the court which rendered it, is solely within control of the court, and seems to have a fixed habitation. In two cases where the judgment creditor lived within the state where the judgment was rendered, it was held that the judgment should be taxed at the creditor's residence; the ground given is that a judgment "is merely the highest evi- dence of a debt," and that the debt remains the same after the judgment is rendered. ^^ This older notion of a judgment has now been abandoned in favor of the more correct view that the judg- ment is a new right which supersedes the old.^^ In Board of Com- missioners V. Leonard,^ where an attempt was made to tax a domestic judgment in favor of a nonresident creditor, the court held that no provision had been made in the statutes for taxing such a judgment; but the court said that it "perceived no valid objection to the power of the legislature to tax all judgments by domestic courts, and remaining unsatisfied, whether owned by citizens of this state, or other states, or foreign countries." The same question came up in a later case in the same state, but went off on another point. ^* It thus appears that there is no sufficient weight of authority to conclude the question; and the opinion expressed above may still be entertained without qualification. " Matter of Glendinning, 68 App. Div. 125, 74 N. Y. Supp. 190 (1902). " Rogers v. Hennepin County, 240 U. S. 184 (1916). «» Adams Express Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 194 (1896); People v. Roberts, 159 N. Y. 70, 53 N. E. 685 (1899); People v. Kelsey, 105 App. Div. 132, 93 N. Y. Supp. 971 (1905)- " Hart V. Smith, 159 Ind. 182, 64 N. E. 661 (1902). " People V. Eastman, 25 Cal. 601 (1864); Mej'er v. Pleasant, 41 La. Ann. 645, •6 So. 258 (1889). " See the modern cases collected in Hilton v. Guyott, 42 Fed. 249 (1890). " 57 Kan. 531, 46 Pac. 960 (1896). " Hamilton v. Wilson, 61 Kan. 511, 59 Pac. 1069 (1900).
