Crosby v. Charlestowns was a very similar case. Stocks and bonds were deposited in a safety deposit vault in Minnesota, the owner being domiciled in New Hampshire. A tax was assessed in New Hampshire and payment was denied on the ground that a tax on the securities had already been paid in Minnesota. The court held that the tax was not rightly levied in Minnesota and that it could be levied in New Hampshire. This was put, however, upon the ground that the securities, being intangible, had no situs of their own for the purposes of taxation. It did not appear in the case that a certificate of deposit was issued for the securities and no claim was made that they had been merged in such a certificate. 87 In Selliger v. Kentucky certain whiskey owned by an inhabitant of Kentucky had been sent to Germany and there deposited in a warehouse and a receipt taken for it. The right was claimed in Kentucky to tax the whiskey, and this right was denied by the Supreme Court. One claim that was made was that the whiskey had been merged in the warehouse receipt and as that was held in Kentucky the situs of the whiskey might be regarded as in that state. Mr. Justice Holmes said, "We are dealing with German receipts, and therefore we are not called upon to consider the effect of statutes purporting to make such instruments negotiable. . . . . The receipt might be made the representative of the goods in a practical sense. A statute might ordain that a sale and delivery of the goods to a purchaser without notice should be invalid as against a subsequent bona-fide purchaser of the receipt. We need not to speculate as to how the law would deal with it in that event, as we have no warrant for assuming that the German law gives it such effect." The net result of these cases would seem to be that a negotiable warehouse receipt, like a negotiable bill of lading, might well be treated, by the law of the place where the goods were at the time of its issue, as a symbol into which the goods were merged, and in such a case the situs of the goods would be regarded as at the place where the receipt happened at the moment to be. Property which is within the control of a court has a situs and is taxable at the place where the court is. Thus, property in the hands of a receiver is taxable in the state which has appointed the receiver,8 and this includes money paid into the court by an ancillary receiver. In the same way if a guardian has been appointed by a court, the prop 89 *Stevens v. New York & O. M. R. R. (1875, S. D. N. Y.) 13 Blatch. 104. "Schmidt v. Failey (1897) 148 Ind. 150, 47 N. E. 326, 37 L. R. A. 442. erty in his hands under such appointment has a situs in the court, though both the guardian and the ward are domiciled outside the state, and the property itself is held by the guardian at his domicil.90 And property in the hands of an executor or administrator, even though it is actually held in another state, is taxable where the probate court is.o1 "Baldwin v. State (1899) 89 Md. 587, 43 Atl. 857, following Baldwin v. Commissioners (1897) 85 Md. 145, 36 Atl. 764. "Thurot's Estate (1918, Utah) 172 Pac. 697. SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE' WILLIAM BLAKE ODGERS Director of Legal Studies at the Inns of Court, London II SUCCESS AT THE BAR As I have stated in a preceding number of this Journal, Blackstone had conceived and warmly advocated a scheme for forming a School of English law at Oxford in New Inn Hall, where the Vinerian fellows and scholars would reside together, with himself as principal. Such a scheme would have been clearly in accordance with the wishes of Charles Viner, as disclosed in his will; but convocation would not agree to the proposal. In 1766, when Blackstone saw that his scheme was impossible, he resigned both the principality of the Hall and the Vinerian Professorship and resolved to give up lecturing and devote himself exclusively to his work at the Bar. And as soon as he gave his whole attention to his profession, he succeeded. On May 1st, 1761, Blackstone was elected a Bencher of the Middle Temple, and five days afterwards he was made a King's Counsel. Two years later, on the establishment of the Queen's Household, he was appointed Solicitor General to her Majesty. In 1768, when a new Parliament was elected, Blackstone was returned as member for Westbury in Wiltshire. And it was in this Parliament that the scene occurred which I have already described, when Grenville quoted the Doctor's book in confutation of the statement which he had just made in his speech that a member of Parliament who had once been expelled from the House could not be re-elected. The part which Blackstone took in the discussions over the successive elections of John Wilkes for Middlesex drew upon him attacks from many persons of ability in the House, and severe criticism from the caustic pen of Junius. Hence later in the year 1769, he decided to retire from Parliament, where, he declared, "amidst the range of contending parties, a man of moderation must expect to meet with no quarter from any side." Whether this be true or not, it is a fact that Blackstone's success in the house was far less than had been anticipated. He still retained the Recordership of Wallingford. Shortly after 1 This paper is the second part of Mr. Odgers' article on Sir William Blackstone. Part I was printed (1918) 27 Yale Law JOURNAL, 599.-Ed. 'Ibid. 615. his marriage he purchased a residence there called Priory Place-a house in which he had occasionally resided, when discharging his duties as Recorder of that borough. He took great interest in the development and prosperity of the town; indeed to him it was largely due that two new turnpike roads were made through Wallingford. He also actively superintended the rebuilding of Wallingford Church with its elegant spire. His active mind was never idle. He was constantly engaged in some scheme of public utility either in London or Wallingford. I have already stated that much of the success which attended the publication of the four successive volumes of Blackstone's Commentaries was due to the purity and elegance of his style and to his power of making the law clear and interesting to his readers, whether they were lawyers or not. But it must not be supposed that his literary ability and power of composition were displayed only in the Commentaries. He also had considerable talent as a versifier. This is shown, not only by his prize poem on Milton, to which reference has already been made, and by many later fugitive pieces-but especially by the poem which he wrote on entering the Middle Temple, which I cannot refrain from quoting at full length: THE LAWYER'S FAREWELL TO HIS MUSE "As, by some tyrant's stern command, "Companion of my tender age, "Lull'd by the lapse of gliding floods, In sweet society with thee! "The wrangling courts, and stubborn law, In frighted streets their orgies hold; "Shakspeare no more, thy sylvan son, Pope's heaven-strung lyre, nor Waller's ease "There, in a winding, close retreat, "Oh! let me pierce the secret shade, |