In the 1899 case of Arnold v. Hatch, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in New Mexico. The plaintiff, Arnold, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who was granted it under Mexican law before New Mexico became part of the U.S., and therefore his claim should be recognized by American courts. However, defendant Hatch argued that this grant was invalid because it wasn't properly recorded according to Spanish colonial law at the time of its issuance. The court ruled in favor of Hatch, stating that while Mexican grants were generally respected under American law following territorial acquisition through Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), they must have been validly made according to local laws at their time for them to be upheld in U.S courts. Therefore since there was no proper recordation as required by then-prevailing Spanish/Mexican laws when this particular grant was allegedly made; hence it could not be considered legally binding or enforceable.

In the dissenting opinion for Arnold v. Hatch, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment on shares of stock held by non-residents in corporations doing business within and outside of New Hampshire failed to consider important factors. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling violated principles of interstate commerce and taxation without representation as established by the U.S Constitution. They contended that only those portions of a corporation's property physically located within a state should be subject to taxation by said state, not all assets regardless of their location or origin. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential double-taxation issues arising from other states following suit with similar laws. In essence, they felt this decision unfairly burdened non-resident shareholders who had no voice in New Hampshire’s government yet were being subjected to its taxes.