_ mnnruena v. mrmnno. 35
dence, and the amount paid to the several parties interested in the
estate who are residents of the commonwealth;" and after the three
years the property, whetherlit has been distributed or not, is to be
assessed according to the provisions of Gen. St. c. 11, § 12, cl. 5.
` It is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that until the
property is distributed, or until three years after the appointment of
` the executor have elapsed, the property is to be treated as situated in
. the place in which its late owner resided, and in which the executor
is required by law to account for it. But upon deliberate considera-
tion of the seventh clause of chapter 11, § 12, of the General Stat- 1
utes, in connection with the other provisions of the same chapter, we are
V unable to find any evidence that the legislature, in framing this clause,
contemplated a case in which the property is itself out of the state, y
and is held by an executor or administrator residing out of the state.
The provision, iirst introduced in those statutes, permitting the tax,
before theappointment of an executor or administrator, to be as- »
sessedgenerally to the estate of the deceased where he last dwelt,
appears to have been intended to prevent the personal property from 4
escaping taxation altogether before such appointment, and not to
extend the liabilityof the executor or administrator for taxes assessed
after his appointment. See Cook v. Leland, 5 Pick. 236; Wood v.
Torrey, 97 Mass. 321. And it is so contrary to the policy of the
commonwealth, as declared by its constitution, and bythe decisions of
its highest court, to impose a tax on personal property which has an
owner, and which is not itself situated or used within the state, and
in which no person residing here has either legal title or beneficial
interest, that we cannot infer an intention to do so without moreex-
plicit words in the tax act. This view being decisive of the case, it
·is unnecessary to consider the graver question, argued at the bar,
whether it is within the constitutional power of the legislature to
impose an annual tax under such circumstances.
_ Demurrer sustained. , v
Tnxurrorz or N-ON•REBIDENTS. Unless restrained by provisions of the
federal constitution, the power of the state as to the mode, form, and extent
_ of taxation is unlimited, where the subjects to which it applies are within its
jurisdiction.(a) The power of the state as to the mode, form, and extentof
taxation is unlimited where the subjects of taxation are within its jurisdic-
tion.(b) While revenue laws have no extraterritorial force, they may reach
(a) State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds. 16 Wall. (b) Stnte Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 15 Wall,
300. 319 5 Oliver v. Washington Mills, 11 Allen, 265.