In the case of Ayer and Lord Tie Company v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kentucky's right to tax property located within its borders that was owned by an out-of-state corporation. The Ayer and Lord Tie Company, a Delaware-based company with timberland properties in Kentucky, argued that it should not be subject to taxation because it did no business within the state other than owning and holding land for future use. However, the court held that states have jurisdiction over all property within their boundaries regardless of where its owners reside or do business. Therefore, they can impose taxes on such properties as long as they are not discriminatory against interstate commerce or non-residents.

In the dissenting opinion for Ayer and Lord Tie Company v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, it was argued that the majority's decision contradicted previous rulings by allowing states to tax property located outside their jurisdiction. The dissenting justices believed that a state should only have taxing power over properties within its borders, not those in other states or countries. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "due process," arguing that it did not include taxation without representation or jurisdiction. Furthermore, they contended that this ruling would lead to double taxation since both the home state and Kentucky could potentially tax these corporations' assets simultaneously. This view maintained an emphasis on strict constitutional interpretation regarding interstate commerce and due process rights.