"Every state has entire jurisdiction over all property, personal as well as real, within its own territorial limits." Clark v. Tarbell, 58 N.H. 88, 88 (1877) (emphasis added). In the absence of a valid choice of law provision, property located in one state cannot be affected by the law of any other state.
The general rule, however, as to the situs of tangible chattels, and the rule applicable to this case, is that expressed by Gray, J., in Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18, 22, where he said, "No general principles of law are better settled, or more fundamental, than that the legislative power of every State extends to all property within its borders, and that only so far as the comity of that State allows can such property be affected by the law of any other State." Clark v. Tarbell, 58 N.H. 88. This has often been applied to the taxation of tangible chattels owned by nonresidents.
They were governed by the law of the Indian Territory. Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. 139 [19 L.Ed. 109]; Clark v. Tarbell. 58 N. H. 88; Guillander v. Howell, 35 N.Y. 657; Whitman v. Conner, 40 N.Y. Super. Ct. 339, 346; Iron Works v. Warren, 76 Ind. 512 [40 Am Rep. 258]; Martin v. Potter, 34 Vt. 87; Tied. Sales, sec. 239; Jones, Chat. Mortg. sec. 305."
The agreement was made with reference to and must be governed by such law. Clark v. Tarbell, 58 N.H. 88; Hallgarten v. Oldham, 135 Mass. 1. The assignment was a bar to the right of the principal defendants to recover these funds, and, no fraud being shown, it is equally a bar to the plaintiff's recovery of the same.
The property being situate in this state at the time the title passed, the validity and obligation of the contract of transfer are to be tested by the laws of this state. Clark v. Tarbell, 58 N.H. 88. II. The defence set up in the second brief statement concludes the plaintiffs' right of recovery, whatever may be held as to the first.