CHAP. II] LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION 381 
absence of the defendant, or where the cause of action has 
nothing to do with the Colony. To put an extreme case, if a 
Colony should allow cases to be brought in its Courts against 
persons in England in respect of causes of action arising in 
England under English law, the judgements of the Courts 
would be probably invalid in any other Court of the world by 
private international law, but they would not be invalid on the 
more restricted ground that a Colony cannot legislate for more 
than its territorial limits. But if it subjects persons resident 
in England to actions in its Courts for matters affecting the 
Colony, as, for instance, a contract to be performed therein, it 
certainly does not exceed the boundaries of its valid jurisdic- 
tion, though the amount of consideration to be paid to its 
judgements will depend on private international law. The 
principle can be illustrated by two recent cases. In one! 
the High Court of the Commonwealth decided that an Act 
taxing property would not be read to apply to property 
situated in England, but insisted that the right was beyond 
doubt to tax property, the proceeds of which were either 
actually present in Queensland or were under contract to be 
present there, so that they must be regarded as being in 
Queensland. In another case? the Privy Council held that 
the express limitation of the wording of s. 92 of the British 
North America Act, 1867, was such as to forbid any Provincial 
Legislature to levy death duties on any property whatever 
not within the province de facto, even if the deceased had 
died domiciled there, although it is the general rule that 
a Colonial Legislature can impose death duties on property 
outside when a man is domiciled in a place, on the ground 
that in law the assets are where the man is domiciled, though 
this does not apply to landed property, which cannot be 
taxed if outside the Colony, unless under contract to be 
1 Hughes v. Munro, 9 C. L. R. 289. Cf. on the seus of assets, debts, &e., 
Beaver v. Master in Equity of Supreme Court of Victoria, [1895] A. C. 251; 
Harding v. Commissioners of Stamps for Queenstand, [1898] A. C. 769; 
Stamp Duties Commissioner v. Salting, [1907] A. C. 449. 
* Woodruff v. Attorney-General for Ontario, [1908] A. C. 508. . Cf: Lovitt 
v. R.. 438. C. R. 106 and in the Privy Council.