Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432, 445, 24 L. ed. 763: Arapahoe County Comrs. v. Cutter, 3 Colo. 349; Collins v. Miller, 43 Ga. 336 (promissory note): Goldgart v. People, Goar, 106 Ill. 25; Lanesborough v. Berkshire County Comrs. 131 Mass. 424; St. Paul v. Merritt, 7 Minn. 258; State v. Earl, 1 Nev. 394.

All

residents of another state than that of his resi- | located; but he shall list such property sepdence is not taxable in the state of the debtor's arate and apart from his own, specifying the residence; the credits, not the debts, are tax-name of the person, estate, company, or corpoable. ration, to which the same may belong. toll bridges shall be listed in the township or ward where the same are located; and if located in two wards or townships, then one half in each of such wards or townships. And all personal property shall be listed and taxed each year in the township, school district, or city in which the property was located on the 1st day of March, but all moneys and credits not pertaining to a business located shall be listed in the township or city in which the owner resided on the 1st day of March." It will be observed that the provisions with reference to what prop

Allen, J., delivered the opinion of the court:

This action was brought by the defendant in error, as plaintiff below. to enjoin the collection of taxes on the unpaid balance of a judgerty shall be subject to taxation are very sweepment in his favor rendered by the district court ing, and that judgments, as well as other forms of Kingman county. This judgment was ren- of intangible property, are not only included dered in an action to recover the amount of a within the general terms used, but are specificpromissory note, and to foreclose a mortgage ally mentioned as included in the term "pergiven to secure the same. The mortgaged sonal property." Sections 9 and 10 of the act property was sold, and, after the application of require the owners of property subject to the proceeds of the sale to the payment of the taxation to make lists thereof and § 10a projudgment, there remained a balance; and the vides that the statement shall set forth the balance remaining unpaid was assessed in number of the school district or districts in the city of Kingman, the county seat of King- which such property was situated on the 1st man county, for taxation. The plaintiff is a day of March. It is ably and earnestly arresident of Missouri. The question presented gued that the common-law rule embodied in for our consideration is whether judgments the maxim, Mobilia personam sequuntur, aprendered by the courts in this state in favor of plies with full force in this case, and that nonresident parties are taxable while they re- the situs of the intangible property evimain unsatisfied. There is no claim in this deuced by the judgment is at the domicil case that the party against whom the judgment of the owner, and subject to taxation there was rendered is insolvent, or that the valuation only. This rule of law is subject to so many placed on the judgment is excessive. Has the exceptions and limitations that it is quite as legislature assumed the power to and provided liable to mislead as to furnish a correct for the taxation of such judgments? Section guide, when considered alone. In the distri1, chap. 107, of the General Statutes of 1889, bution of the estates of deceased persons, it is reads: "Section 1. That all property in this generally, if not universally, given full force state, real and personal, not expressly exempt and effect, both as to tangible and intangible therefrom, shall be subject to taxation in the property; and, from comity, nations foreign manner prescribed by this act." In § 2 the to each other generally recognize the law of term "personal property" is defined as follows: the place of the owner's domicil as controlling "The term 'personal property' shall include in the distribution of the personal estate of the every tangible thing which is the subject of deceased owner. To questions of taxation the ownership, not forming part or parcel of real maxim has very little application. Every sovproperty; also, all tax-sale certificates, judg-ereignty asserts the right to levy taxes on perments, notes, bonds and mortgages, and all evidences of debt secured by lien on real estate; also, the capital stock, undivided profits, and all other assets of every company, incorporated or unincorporated, and every share or interest in such stock, profit, or assets, by whatever name the same may be designated: provided, the same is not included in other personal property subject to taxation, or listed as the property of individuals; and also every share or interest in any vessel or boat used in navigating any of the waters within or bordering on this state, whether such vessel or boat shall be within the jurisdiction of the state or elsewhere; and also all 'property' owned, leased, used, occupied, or employed by any railway or telegraph company, or corporation within this state, situate on the right of way of any railway.' Section 7 of the same chap ter provides where property shall be listed for taxation, and the part of the section material to this inquiry reads as follows: "Every person required to list property in behalf of others shall list such property in the same township, school district, or city in which said property is

sons and property within its protection, and the ground on which all taxation is justified is that it is a burden necessarily imposed by the sovereignty in order to enable it to perform its duty in protecting persons and property. 1 Desty, Taxn. 59; Cooley, Taxn. 19 et seq.; Story, Confl. L. 543, note A, and cases cited. We think it now quite well settled that choses in action belonging to a nonresident, in the hands of a managing agent within the state, are taxable. New Albany v. Meekin, 56 Am. Dec. 522, note page 530, and cases therein cited; 1 Desty, Taxn. 64; Finch v. York County, 19 Neb. 50, 56 Am. Rep. 741. The power to tax residents of the state on credits due from citizens of other states is often upheld. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 42 Conn. 426, 19 Am. Rep. 546. And this even where it results in duplicate taxation. Dyer v. Osborne, 11 R. I. 321, 23 Am. Rep. 460; note to People v. Worthington, 74 Am. Dec. 95, and cases cited. The cases upholding the power to tax promissory notes and other written securities held within the state, though owned by a nonresident, sometimes lay stress on the fact that the securities

are, in a certain sense, property, and are sub- | must be taxed in the township, school district, ject to seizure for debt, and that a title may be or city in which it is located; and, to be taxable, made to the intangible debt by delivery of the it must be held to have a situs of its own. written evidence of it. The authorities with reference to the situs of a judgment are not numerous, and no case is called to our attention where the precise point now under consideration has been decided in an action where the owner of the judgment resided out of the state. But, in cases where the owner resided in the state, it has been held that the situs of the judgment for purposes of taxation is at the residence of the judgment creditor. Meyer v. Pleasant, 41 La. Ann. 645; People v. Eastman, 25 Cal. 601.

We perceive no valid objection to the power of the legislature to tax all judgments by domestic courts, and remaining unsatisfied, whether owned by citizens of this state, or other states, or foreign countries, provided the rate of taxation be the same as that imposed on other forms of property belonging to citizens of this state. The question here, however, is whether the legislature has expressed a purpose to tax judgments in favor of a citizen of another state, rather than as to the power to do so. Judgments are included, by the express provision of 2, in the term "personal property." Does this mean judgments owned by citizens of this state, or those rendered by courts within the state, without reference to ownership? In answering this question, some weight, at least, should be given to the rule that credits are generally regarded as residing with the creditor. The case of Fisher v. Rush County Comrs. 19 Kan. 414, is an extreme one, and has been criticised. A resident of this state may undoubtedly be taxed on moneys due him from citizens of other states, and this would be equally true after the claim is reduced to judgment in a foreign jurisdiction. Under the provisions of $7, where the owner of a domestic judgment resides in this state, it seems clear that it must be taxed at the place of his residence, provided it does not pertain to a business located at some other place. Where the owner is a nonresident, if taxed at all, it

When this case was first considered, the writer was strongly inclined to the opinion that a judgment should be held to have a situs of its own at the place where the record of the court rendering it is kept; but it seems quite clear that, if the owner be a resident of the state, the situs is with him, at his place of residence, and there is no purpose expressed by the legislature to give judgments in favor of nonresidents a situs for the purpose of taxation. If the legislature wishes to change the rule, and establish a situs for taxation for all judg ments rendered by the courts of this state, it ought to employ language expressive of its purpose to do so. The natural implication from the language in fact employed would seem to be that, as to the situs of credits for taxation, the rules generally recognized were intended to be followed. The judgment is affirmed. All the Justices concur.

KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS.

S. T. MCLAUGHLIN, Appt.,

v.

LOUISVILLE ELECTRIC-LIGHT COM

PANY.

1. A stockholder in a corporation which owns stock in another company is disqualified to act as juror in an action against the latter company.

2. The utmost care is necessary to keep
the insulation of dangerous electric wires
perfect at a place where people have a right to
go to work, business, or pleasure, although very
great care may be sufficient as to wires at other
places.

3. The apparently proper insulation of
electric-light wires on the side of a building is an
invitation or inducement to persons painting the
building to risk the consequences of contact with
them, especially in the middle of the day.
4. The fact that the insulation of dan-
gerous electric wires is very expen-
sive or inconvenient is no excuse for failure to
make such insulation perfect at points where
NOTE. For negligence as to electric-light wires
in or on buildings, see Griffin v. United Electric
Light Co. (Mass.) 32 L. R. A. 400, and note.

people have the right to go for work, business. or pleasure.

5. A man who comes in contact with an electric-light wire on the side of a building while climbing out of a window upon a cornice while at work painting the building is not guilty of contributory negligence, unless in so doing he fails to exercise the degree of care which ordinarily careful and prudent persons usually exercise under such circumstances.

(November 25, 1896.)

APPEAL by plaintiff from a judgment of

the Circuit Court for Jefferson County in favor of defendant in an action brought to recover damages for personal injuries caused by contact with an improperly insulated electric wire belonging to defendant. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Junius C. Klein for appellant.
Messrs. Gibson & Marshall, O'Neal,
Phelps, & Pryor, and Phelps & Thum
for appellee.

Guffy, J., delivered the opinion of the court:

It is alleged in the petition in this action that "the plaintiff is and was on the 8th day of

July, 1893, a painter by trade, and followed | known under the circumstances was necessary the same for a livelihood, and was on the 8th to be exercised by him to avoid injury from day of July, 1893, engaged in painting a house said wire. Wherefore, having answered, deon the east side of Fourth street, in the said fendant prays to be dismissed. The reply of city of Louisville, between Market and Main plaintiff traversed the allegations of the anstreets, and numbered -; that on said 8th swer. The jury found for the defendant, and day of July, 1893, and long prior thereto, the his petition was dismissed. Appellant relied defendant, its agents and servants, had erected on these grounds for a new trial, viz.. That and maintained one of its electric wires, the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury charged with electricity, on the side of said as requested by plaintiff in instructions Nos. house facing Fourth street; that the said wire, 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9; (2) that the verdict of the jury on the 8th day of July, and long prior thereto, is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (3) that was insufficiently, carelessly, and negligently the court erred in not excusing a juror, Willinsulated, and that defendant, its agents and iam Pryatt, for cause, he being a stockholder servants, were well aware of said want of in- in the Louisville Gas Company, and it being sulation, or could have been aware of same the owner of stock in the defendant company. by the exercise of proper diligence; that plain- The motion for a new trial was overruled, and tiff on said 8th day of July, 1893, while in the plaintiff has appealed. discharge of his duties as painter aforesaid, and The plaintiff below (appellant here) testified without fault on his part, came in contact with in substance as follows: "S. T. McLaughlin said wire, which at the said time was heavily testified: That he was twenty-two years of charged with electricity by the defendant, its age, and a house painter by trade; was a conagents and servants, whereby he was severely tractor in that line, and had a job in conjuncshocked and rendered insensible, and that tion with Asa Carr of painting the front of H. he remained insensible and unconscious for C. Green's hotel, known as the 'Fourth Avetwenty minutes and more; that he suffered nue Hotel,' and had almost finished the work, severe pain, both physically and mentally, on the 8th day of July, 1893, when he came in by reason of said shock, and that the flesh contact with one of the defendant's electric on his left hand was burnt and blistered wires, near the side of a window, and received to such an extent as to render said hand a shock. That defendant had two wires runuseless, and that ever since and now said ning from the west side of Fourth street in plaintiff is unable to use said hand in the per- Louisville, Kentucky. That these two wires formance of his vocation as a painter; that were fastened to brackets attached to the side plaintiff is rendered less able thereby to make of the wall between the first and second a living at his trade as a painter; that the said windows of the hotel, counting from the injuries received by the said plaintiff are per- north. These windows were on the second manent, and that his entire nervous system, floor of the building. The first floor was ocby reason of said shock, is unbalanced, caus- cupied by business firms. That these brackets ing plaintiff much and severe pain; that the said were fastened to the wall about 6 inches from injuries complained of herein were caused each window, and about 5 feet above the sill wholly by the gross negligence of the defend- of the windows. That defendant had an iron ant, its agents and servants; that the plaintiff box, called a 'converter,' attached to the side had been damaged by reason of said injuries of the hotel building, midway between these in the sum of $2,500. Wherefore the plaintiff two windows. That this box was about a foot prays judgment against the defendant for the above an iron cornice running the full length sum of $2,500, and for his costs, and for all of the building, immediately below the winproper relief." The defendant filed a de-dows, about 6 inches below. That these two murrer to the petition, which was overruled by the court. The first paragraph of the answer substantially denies all the averments in the petition which show any right to recover. The second paragraph of the answer is as follows: "Further answering, this defendant says that the injuries received by the plaintiff, and set forth in the petition, were received wholly and entirely because of his want of proper care and caution in looking out for his own safety, and by reason of his carelessness in coming in contact with an electric light wire, which he knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety could have known, was then and there charged with a current of electricity, making it dangerous to life for any one to come in contact with the said wire. Defendant says that, by the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, and such as circumstances and surroundings made it apparent was necessary, the plaintiff could have avoided coming in contact with the said wire, and could have escaped all injury therefrom. Defendant says that plaintiff came into contact with said wires by failing to exercise that degree of care which he knew or ought to have

wires ran from the brackets to the top of this converter or box. That plaintiff was shocked by the wire next to the north side of the second window, at a place where the wire was joined together, and about half way between the bracket and the converter. That this wire ran down from its bracket along the side of the window, and 6 inches from the window, for about 2 feet, and then turned over north to the converter. That the iron cornice was about 12 inches wide; space enough for a man to stand on conveniently, and paint. That he and his men had used the cornice to work from, as there were wires preventing the staging or swinging ladder from being let down between them. When he had painted down to the bracket and wires, he pulled the staging up, out of the way, and painted around the wires and the iron box, while standing on the iron cornice. The window sill was outside about 5 inches by 5 inches, and rested on the iron cornice inside of the wood about a foot wide. That he had put several coats of paint on the house, and was through, with the exception of touching up the right hind ear of the iron box. That he was in the act of get.

same, stirring some paint. The work of painting the building was finished with the exception of a little space below the second window sill, and one of the ears of the iron box on the side of the house between the first and second windows. That McLaughlin got his brush full of paint, and was going out to paint this ear; and, while I was at the first window, he started to get out of the second window, with his brush in his right hand. Had nothing left in his left. He had hardly gotten into the window opening when I heard a groan, followed immediately by a second one, and I then leaned out of the window, and looked in the direction of the groans, and saw McLaughlin have hold of the electric wire between this iron box and a bracket right on the joint of the wire. I quickly ran to the second window, put my arm between him and the north side of the window out around his body, then reached out over his head, and took hold of the wrist of his left hand, and jerked it loose from the wire, and lifted him into the building, and laid him down on the floor. About that time Asa Carr came into the room, and then Mr. Green, of the hotel. We all rubbed him, walked him, and slapped him for fully twenty minutes before he was revived. At the time I pulled his hand loose from the wire, I received a shock myself, but not enough to hurt me. McLaughlin, when I reached him, was doubled up partly on the window sill, and one leg out on the iron cornice below the window. He suff ered a great deal; was unconscious for fully twenty minutes. Examined the joint he had hold of immediately after we had got him to himself. Found the joint very loose and rotten. One end of the stuff used in wrapping it was hanging down about 2 inches. The wires all seemed to be covered with insulation. The place McLaughlin had hold of this wire was very near the north edge of the north side of the second window. The bracket to which it was fastened was within 6 inches of the edge of the window. These windows were about 3 feet apart. The sills were of wood and stone. The stone was 5 inches wide and thick, and rested on an iron cornice, running above the storerooms on the first floor. This iron box or converter was placed against the wall between the first and second windows in the middle, and about a foot above the iron cornice. This wire entered at the top of the box at the side. The wires come from across the street, from the west side, and run over to these brackets, and then down to the box. Whenever we had painted to the top down to these wires, we pulled the staging up out of the way, and stood on this iron cornice, and painted from there. The cornice is 12 inches wide. Had worked around the very same wire several times. Had experienced no shock, nor did he notice anything wrong with the wire. All seemed insulated. Did not remember seeing Squire Green around there. Did not hear him or anyone else warn McLaughlin to beware of the wires. Nothing was said about the wires being dangerous." Other witnesses testified as to the injury.

ting out of this second window on the cornice, | was standing on the first window, inside of to touch up this ear, when he received the shock. That he had taken his brush full of paint in his right hand, and nothing in his left, and was on the sill of the window, turning back out onto the cornice, when he used his left hand to steady himself against the north side of the window opening, when his hand came in contact with the wire, and he received the shock which rendered him unconscious, and he did not know anything more for about a half an hour, when he was revived and found himself inside of the house, with Asa Carr, W. J. Cody, his employee, and Mr. H. C. Green, working with him to revive him. That his left hand was burnt and blistered on the 3d and 4th fingers, and at the edge of the palm, at base of small finger. That he suffered a great deal at the time of the shock and long afterwards. That he went home and went to bed for a week. That he has never fully recovered the full use of his left arm and hand. That he has not been able to work at his trade or calling on account of the weakness of his hand. That he cannot properly handle the brush and ropes. That in his trade it requires strong hands and arms to hoist and lower himself on the staging. That he has not had any work at his trade at all. That he did and is working as a hand on the steamer plying between Louisville and Cincinnati; and has worked about two months. That there was no sign or anything else to warn him of a danger about or near those wires." On cross-examination, said S. T. McLaughlin testified: That no one warned him at any time about those wires. That he did not know Squire Green, but did know Mr. Green, proprietor of the hotel. That Squire Green did not tell him to keep away from those wires. Did not see Squire Green around the building the day before the accident. Squire Green did not offer to cut the wires if he wanted it done. Nor did he tell Squire Green that he could get along without the wires being cut. That no one told him that the wires were alive or dangerous. That he knew that electric wires were dangerous, but that he had been working around the wires all week, and all seemed to be insulated, and yet he was not hurt. That he did not know electricity was turned on. That it was about noon of the 8th day of July, 1893, when he was hurt. That he saw no lights about the building. That he came up to the office of the defendant one Supday night; whether first Sunday after the accident or not he did not remember. Was there because Mr. Smith had sent for him. Did not tell Mr. Smith or anyone else that he was not hurt, or was scared more than hurt, and did tell him then and there that he was hurt, and showed him his hand, and pointed out the places where it was burned. That he did not meet Squire Green every other Sunday on Third and Jefferson streets. Witness then showed his hand to the jury, pointing out the only indication of the burn at edge of palm. That what appeared to be a wart there was not a wart. It was not there when he was shocked. It came there afterwards, when it healed up. William J. Cody testified: "Was working there on the 8th day of July, 1893, the day on which Sam McLaughlin was hurt. That he

John F. Bunscomb testified as follows: "John F. Bunscomb testified that he is an electrician. Have run similar plants to that of