6o6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW Nowhere is the reason for this doctrine better and more forcibly expressed than by Judge Robertson in Thomas v. Mason County Court.^^ In that case a debt was due from an Ohio debtor to a minor ward in Kentucky, and a tax had been laid by Kentucky on the amount of the debt. It was objected that the debtor had already paid taxes in Ohio upon the property represented by the debt; but the Kentucky tax was upheld by the court, which said: "Borrowed capital in Ohio is taxable as the borrower's property there, and the debt due to the lender in Kentucky is taxable here as her prop- erty. In this case, the ward's right to the money in Ohio is a portion of the wealth of Kentucky and ought to contribute to the burthens of the government which protects her; and if it could escape contribution by lending it in Ohio, a knowledge of that fact would encourage the ex- hausting deportation of the money of Kentucky to augment the wealth of some other State." The older cases, as well as some recent cases, regard notes, bonds, certificates of stock, and other commercial securities as mere evidences of debt or obligation, and as taxable therefore to the owner at his domicile as part of his personal estate. Thus a bond is taxable at the domicile of the owner,^^ though it may be actually situated outside the state; ®^ and a note may be taxed at the residence of the holder,^^ though it is kept elsewhere.^^ On the same principle, stock in a foreign corporation is taxable at the 79 Fed. 138 (1897); Collins v. Miller, 43 Ga. 336 (1871); Williams v. Mandell, 44 Ga. 26 (1871); Foresman v. Byrns, 68 Ind. 247 (1879); McCartney v. Caskey, 66 Kan. 412, 71 Pac. 832 (1903); Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. New Orleans, 41 La. Ann. 1015, 6 So. 794 (1889); Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 44 La. Ann. 760, II So. 91 (1892); Railey v. Board of Assessors, 44 La. Ann. 765, 11 So. 93 (1892); Howell V. Gordon, 127 Mich. 517, 86 N. W. 1042 (1901); St. Paul v. Merritt, 7 Minn. 258 (1862); Matter of Bentley, 31 N. Y. Misc. 656, 66 N. Y. Supp. 95 (1900); Matter of Abbett, 29 N. Y. Misc. 567, 61 N. Y. Supp. 1067 (1899); Myers v. Seaberger, 45 Ohio St. 232, 12 N. E. 796 (1887). « 4 Bush (Ky.) 13s (1868). ^ State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 300, 324 (1872); Kirtland r. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491 (1879); Mackay v. San Francisco, 113 Cal. 392, 45 Pac. 696 (1896); Augusta V. Dunbar, 50 Ga. 387 (1873); Street R. R. v. Morrow, 87 Tenn. 406, II S. W. 348 (1889) (semble). ^ Crosby v. Charlestown (N. H.), 95 Atl. 1043 (1915); Commonwealth v. Williams, 102 Va. 778, 47 S. E. 867 (1904). Even though pledged there: Commonwealth t>. Buffalo & L. E. T. Co., 233 Pa. 79, 81 Atl. 932 (191 1). M Collins V. Miller, 43 Ga. 336 (1871). « Hunter v. Board of Supervisors, 33 la. 376 (1871); Crosby v. Charlestown (N. H.), 95 Atl. 1043 (1915)-
