6i2 HARVARD LAW REVIEW by removing temporarily from the State evidence of credits in the form of notes. Under such circumstances, they have a taxable situs in the State of their origin." It will be noticed that in the case just quoted the notes were from time to time sent by the agent to the owner to be held by him. The court regarded this as a mere temporary absence from the place where they were really and constantly in use, that is, the place where the business was carried on. This fact, of course, accentuates the position taken by the court that the notes were taxable as part of a stock in tradje. The general doctrine is illustrated by a series of decisions in Louisiana, in which legislation has been especially directed to the taxation of business done within the state by nonresidents. In the first case a bank deposit made by a local agent of a non- resident was held not taxable. Clason v. Board of Assessors P^ In Bliiefields Banana Co. v. Board of Assessors, ^"^ this was distin- guished as a temporary deposit, and a bank deposit permanently used in carrying on the business was held taxable. The case was followed in Parker v. Strauss}^ These decisions were, however, soon discredited. In Liverpool &• London b° Globe Insurance Co. V. Board of Assessors,^^^ it was held that bills receivable due to a foreign corporation arising out of business done within the state were not taxable; on the ground that debts in non-concrete form, i. e., simple contract debts, have no situs, and can be taxed at the domicile of the creditor. A year later the court in the case of Comptoir National v. Board of Assessors ^^^ allowed a local tax upon notes received in the course of business by a foreign corporation, though the notes were not negotiable; and the same decision was reached as to due-bills received in the course of business in Monon- gahela R. C. C. 6* C. Co. v. Board of Assessor s.^^^ Up to this time the power to tax in this sort of case seems to have been conditioned upon the presence of a concrete debt or specialty within the state. But in two well-reasoned cases, simul- taneously decided, the court overruled the earlier case and held ^^ 46 La. Ann. i, 14 So. 306 (1894). ^ 49 La. Ann. 43, 21 So. 627 (1897). ^ 49 La. Ann. 1173, 22 So. 329 (1897). ^ 51 La. Ann. 1028, 25 So. 970 (1899). "^ 52 La. Ann. 1319, 27 So. 801 (1900). 1** 115 La. Ann. 564, 39 So. 601 (1905).
