·’ unnmomn v. BAPELLO. 33
executor, or any legatee, distributes, or creditor is an inhabitant
thereof. The allegation that the taxes were "duly assessed" shows f
only that they were assessed in proper form. And the Eual allega-
tion, that the defendant owes the plaintiff the amount of the taxes, is
a mere conclusion of law, which is not admitted by the demurrer.
The taxes sued for are not of the nature of legacy or succession taxes,
as in the cases of Mayer v. Grima, 8 How. 490, and of U. S. v. Hun-
newell, decided by this court at the present terms But they are
annual taxes, assessed under the general tax acts of Massachusetts.
The case, therefore, directly presents the question whether personal
property of a deceased inhabitant of Massachusetts is taxable, under B
those acts, after the appointment of an executor, and before distri-
bution, when the property is not within the commonwealth, and
neither the executor, nor any pe1·son having an interest in or right
to receive the property, has a domicile or residence here. This ques-
tion does not appear to have been decided bythe supreme judicial
court of Massachusetts. But the rules established by the constitv- ‘
tion and the statutes of the commonwealth, as expounded by that
court, afford satisfactory guides for its determination. _ ·
The power conferred by the constitution upon the legislature is "to
impose and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates, and
taxes upon all the inhabitants of, and persons resident and estates
lying within, the said commonwealth. Const. Mass. c. 1,§ 1, art. 4.
And no case has been brought to our notice in which personal prop-
A erty, not itself within the state, and the present owners of which do
not reside within the state, has been held to be taxable here. The
right to tax is created and limited by the constitution, and by the
acts passed by the legislature pursuant to the authority thereby con-
ferred; and such acts are not to be extended by doubtful interpreta-
tion, but are to be restricted to cases coming clearly within their lan-
guage and their intent. Sewall v. Jones, 9 Pick. 412, 414; Green v.
Holway, 101 Mass. 243, 248. When the owner of the legal title in
personal property resides out of the state, express and unequivocal
words are needed to subject the property, even if itself sit-uated or K
used here, to the provisions of the general tax acts. Flanders v. Cross, -
10 Gush. 514; Dorr v. Boston, 6 Gray, 131 ; Leonard v. New Bedford, i
16 Gray, 292. ’
By Gen. St. c. 11, § 12, it is enacted that "all personal estate,
within or without the state, shall be assessed to the owner in the city .
or town where he is an inhabitant on the first day of May, except as
V·14»¤0·1—3 = 13 Fee. cr:. l