investigation must be practically impossible. So, also, in the case of circulating notes of banking institutions: if their title did not pass by delivery, or, in other words, if their situs as property was not under all circumstances accepted as in the hand of the holder, their use as money would be impossible; and the courts, recognizing this principle most fully, have always held that in cases where negotiable instruments or money have been stolen, and in consideration for value received have come into the hands of innocent third parties, the title to such property in the hands of the holders is perfect and irrevocable.
Again, the circumstance that State, municipal, and railroad bonds, and all other strictly negotiable instruments, even warehouse receipts payable to bearer, are subject to attachment by legal process only at the place where they actually are, and without regard to the whereabouts of the owner or his domicile, of itself also clearly defines and limits the situs of such property for taxation; for clearly a State which has the power to make a legal attachment operative against a given property has also the power to tax such property; while, on the other hand, a State which through lack of possession and jurisdiction, can not attach a specific property, certainly can not enforce its tax laws against it, or give protection in case its rights or the rights of its owner are violated. And, again, can the right to tax personal property exist in a State from which the property is so confessedly absent that there is neither right, power, nor possibility of passing title to it within the territory of the State by delivery?
That the view thus taken respecting the situs of negotiable instruments, and especially of railroad mortgage bonds, for taxation, is in strict conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court, is also evident from the fact that in summing up the court held that not only was a mortgage bond issued by a railroad chartered by Pennsylvania, and in the hands of a non-resident, property out of the State, and as such beyond the jurisdiction of the taxing power of the State, but also that the State could not tax such property even when owned by a citizen and resident, unless the bond was at the time of assessment actually within the territory of the State. And as this point is a most important one, it is desirable to ask attention to the exact language of the court establishing it.
"We are clear," says Justice Field, "that the tax can not be sustained; that the bonds, being held by non-residents of the State, are only property in their hands, and that they are thus beyond the jurisdiction of the taxing power of the State. Even where the bonds are held by residents of the State, the retention by the company of a portion of the stipulated interest can only be sustained as a mode of
