In Savings and Loan Society v. Multnomah51 the broad dicta of the court in the State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds cases were again modified, this time with reference to the taxation of mortgages. In this case the court held that mortgages, whether held by residents or non-residents, may be taxed at their full value by the State in which the mortgaged property is located, and that this may be done either by taxing the whole value of the property to the mortgagor or by taxing to the mortgagee the interest represented by the mortgage and the remainder to the mortgagor. The court say: a share of the net profits. His claim is a personal one against the corporation; like the bondholder he has only a chose in action, and no direct legal interest in the business."

49 196 U. S. 466; 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 297; 49 L. ed. 556.

50 "That it was rightly determined that it was within the power of the state to fix, for the purposes of taxation, the situs of stock in a domestic corporation, whether held by residents or non-residents, is so conclusively settled by the prior adjudications of this court that the subject is not open for discussion. Indeed, it was conceded in the argument at bar that no question was made on this subject. The whole contention is that, albeit the situs of the stock was in the State of Maryland for the purposes of taxation, it was nevertheless beyond the power of the State to personally tax the non-resident owner for and on account of the ownership of the stock, and to compel the corporation to pay, and confer upon it the right to proceed by a personal action against the stockholder in case the corporation did pay. Reiterated in various forms of expression, the argument is this: that as the situs of the stock within the state was the sole source of the jurisdiction of the State to tax, the taxation must be confined to an assessment in rem against the stock, with a remedy for enforcement confined to the sale of the thing taxed, and hence without the right to compel the corporation to pay, or to give it when it did pay, a personal action against the owner.

"But these contentions are also in effect long since foreclosed by decisions of this court." First National Bank v. Kentucky, 9 Wall. 353; 19 L. ed. 701; Tappan v. Merchants' National Bank, 19 Wall. 490; 22 L. ed. 189."

51 169 U. S. 421; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 392; 42 L. ed. 803.

"The declaration of the court in the State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds (15 Wall. 300; 21 L. ed. 179) that a mortgage, being a mere security for the debt, confers no interest in the land, and, where held by a non-resident, is as much beyond the jurisdiction of the State as the person of its owner, ' went beyond what was required for the decision of the case and cannot be reconciled with other decisions of this court.'" Concluding, the court say: "... The statute of Oregon, the constitutionality of which is now drawn in question, expressly forbids any taxation of the promissory note, or other instrument of writing, which is the evidence of the debt secured by the mortgage; and, with equal distinctness, provides for the taxation, as real estate, of the mortgage interest in the land. Although the right which the mortgage transfers in the land covered thereby is not the legal title, but only an equitable interest and by way of security for the debt, it appears to us to be clear upon principle, and in accordance with the weight of authority, that this interest, like any other interest, legal or equitable, may be taxed to its owner (whether resident or non-resident) in the state where the land is situated, without contravening any provision of the Constitution of the United States."'