In the 1903 U.S. Supreme Court case Bache v. Hunt, the court examined a dispute over inheritance and property rights. The plaintiff, Bache, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties in California based on an inheritance from his deceased relative who had owned these properties before dying intestate (without a will). However, the defendant, Hunt argued that under Californian law at that time of death of said relative (1850), foreigners were not allowed to inherit real estate; thus making him ineligible as he was residing outside United States when his relative died. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hunt stating that although current laws permitted foreigners to inherit property but they could not be applied retroactively i.e., it would not affect cases prior to its enactment. Therefore since Bache's claim relied on laws enacted after his relatives' death which did not apply retrospectively - hence invalidating his claim for inheritance.

In the dissenting opinion for Bache v. Hunt, 1903, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on stock transfers was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this tax violated constitutional principles by imposing an undue burden on interstate commerce and infringing upon federal jurisdiction over such matters. They contended that stocks were not merely property but also represented a right to participate in corporate management and profits; thus, taxing their transfer could potentially interfere with these rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that states had inherent power to impose taxes within their borders without regard for potential impacts on interstate commerce or other federal interests. This view held that state taxation powers should be limited by considerations of national unity and economic efficiency as well as respect for individual property rights.