PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION. 799 



loaned by Kirtland, in each of these years, as was conceded, without 

 the territory of the State. The sums thus added were subsequently 

 assessed in the town of Woodbury in the same manner and at the 

 same rate as was other property which Mr. Kirtland owned within 

 the State and there situated. 



Payment of the taxes thus assessed on the amount of these 

 Illinois loans being refused by Kirtland, the tax collector (Hotch- 

 kiss), in April, 1873, levied his tax warrants on the real estate 

 of the alleged delinquent in Woodbury, and advertised the same 

 for sale; and on petition for injunction to restrain the collector 

 from such proceedings, on the ground of the illegality of the tax 

 in question and its assessment, the case came before the court of 

 last appeal in the State, known as the " Supreme Court of Errors " ; 

 it being agreed by all parties concerned that the only question in 

 the case was whether the bonds owned by Kirtland, drawn in the 

 form and manner stated, were liable to taxation in Connecticut. 



Case for the Respondent. — In the argument before and in the 

 opinion rendered by this court the following were the points mainly 

 relied upon in support of the position that the petition for in- 

 junction in restraint of the collection of the tax should not be 

 granted : First, that the statutes of Connecticut explicitly authorized 

 and required the taxation of debts due its citizens from parties out 

 of the State. Second, in respect to the power of the Legislature of 

 Connecticut to authorize and require such form of taxation, it was 

 claimed that there was no provision in the Constitution of the State 

 limiting and defining such power of taxation. Third, the follow- 

 ing characterization of the nature of a debt or a chose in action, and 

 its suitability as a subject for taxation for the purpose of obtaining 

 revenue, was put forward by the counsel for the State as a statement 

 of economic conclusions worthy of full acceptance. " It (a chose 

 in action) has not a visible, tangible form. The note, bond, or 

 account even, may be evidence of a debt, but it is not the debt itself. 

 The specific money when loaned, and received by the borrower, is 

 no longer the property of the creditor. It is soon merged in the 

 circulating mass, and the creditor can neither identify and claim it, 

 nor put his hand upon any property purchased with it, and say that 

 that is his. The money may be invested in real estate, or manufac- 

 turing, or mechandising, or speculation. It may prove a profitable 

 investment, or it may in a short time prove a total loss. It is all the 

 same to the creditor so long as his debtor's ability to pay is unim- 

 paired. He has simply a right to receive a given sum of money 

 with interest or damages for its detention. It is a personal right, 

 and accompanies the person of the creditor. The debtor is under a 

 corresponding obligation to pay the demand. The right to receive is 



