JURISDICTION TO TAX 621 Ownership of tangible property by a trustee does not, of course, prevent its taxation at its situs.^^^ The case of the executor or administrator is more complicated than that of the trustee, in that he holds his title as an officer of the court. It is therefore necessary to decide between two places of taxation: his domicile, and the jurisdiction of the appointing court. The domicile of a beneficiary is of course immaterial.^^^ For the reason indicated, the courts usually hold the situs of the estate to be in the court which appointed the executor or ad- ministrator who holds it; in case of principal administration, the domicile of the deceased,^^^ and in case of ancillary administration the state of appointment,^^* even though the domicile of the ex- ecutor or administrator is elsewhere. ^^^ Under the Massachusetts statutes it appears to be held, con- trary to the general rule, that the state of administration can tax the property only if the executor or administrator is domiciled there; if he is domiciled elsewhere, and the property is not actually situated within the state, it cannot be taxed.^^^ It is not necessary, however, to invoke any peculiar doctrine of this nature to support the case of Putnam v. MiddlehoroughP"^ In that case a Massa- chusetts decedent had left personal property both in Massachusetts and in California, and named as executor a resident of CaHfornia, who was appointed both in Massachusetts and in CaHfornia. He was held not taxable in Massachusetts on the California property. This conclusion must have been reached in any state, since the California property was held by the executor not by reason of any action of the Massachusetts court, but because of his ancillary appointment in California. '" Swarts V. Hammer, 194 U. S. 441 (1904). 1" Baldwin v. Shine, 84 Ky. 502, 2 S. W. 164 (1886); Boske v. Security T. & S. V. Co. 22 Ky. L. Rep. 181, 56 S. W. 524 (1900); Tafel v. Lewis, 75 Ohio St. 182, 78 N. E. 1003 (1906).
- " In re Miller, 116 la. 446, 90 N. W. 89 (1902); Commonwealth v. Peebles, 134 Ky.
121, 119 S. W. 774 (1909); Bonaparte v. State, 63 Md. 465 (1885); People i^. Commis- sioners of Taxes, 38 Hun (N. Y.) 536 (1886); Tafel v. Lewis, 75 Ohio St. 182, 78 N. E. 1003 (1906). "* Dorris V. Miller, 105 la. 564, 75 N. W. 482 (1898); Baldwin v. Shine, 84 Ky. 502, 2 S. W. 164 (1886); In re Thourot's Estate, 172 Pac. 697 (Utah) (1918). "" Gallup t. Schmidt, 154 Ind. 196, 56 N. E. 443 (1900); Bonaparte v. State, 63 Md. 465 (1885). "« Dallinger 1. Rapello, 14 Fed. 32 (1882). •" 209 Mass. 456, 95 N. E. 749 (1911).
