This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1898 edition. Excerpt: ... operation, and therefore the judgment of the state court must be reversed. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss' seems to be in accord with the case just noticed. It was there held that "for purposes of taxation, a debt has its situs at the residence of thecreditor, and may be there taxed." Here the term debt' is evidently employed to represent the right, chose in action, or ownership which is with the creditor in his jurisdiction, and not to represent the debt.property which may be situated in another jurisdiction. 118. United States internal revenue tax as todividends due stockliolders.--Railroad Co. v. Collector" was under the United States statute ' imposing an internal 1 100 U. S., 491, 1864. c. 173, as amended by Act. ' 100 U. S., 595. July 13, 1866, c. 184. 3Sec. 122 of Act of June 30, UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE TAX. 129 revenue tax. The statute provided that any railroad company (or other described company) owing money for which bonds have been issued, or declaring dividends due to stockholders whether citizens or aliens, or carrying any profits to the account of any fund, 'shall pay a tax of five per centum on the amount of all such dividends or profits, coupons or interest; and that "said companies are hereby authorized to deduct and withhold from all payments on account of any interest or coupons and dividends due and payable as aforesaid, the tax of five per centum." The Michigan Central Railroad Co., having paid under protest to the collector five per centum of interest due on bonds held in London, sued him to recover it. The case went to the federal Supreme Court where it was decided (Miller, J.) that the tax was on the business or income of the company;' that the...