Whereas, with reference to the taxation of tangible personal property, the practice has been to determine its situs by its actual location, with respect to intangible personalty, the principle of mobilia sequuntur personam has generally, though as we shall presently see, not always been applied.

In Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky43 the court say: "There is an obvious distinction between tangible and intangible property, in the fact that the latter is held secretly; that there is no method by which its existence or ownership can be ascertained in the State of its situs except, perhaps, in the case of mortgages or shares of stock. So if the owner be discovered, there is no way by which he can be reached by process in a State other than that of his domicile, or the collection of the tax otherwise enforced. In this class of cases the tendency of modern authorities is to apply the maxim mobilia sequuntur personam, and to hold that the property may be taxed at the domicile of the owner as the real situs of the debt, and also, more particularly in the case of mortgages, in the State where the property is retained. Such have been the repeated rulings of this court."