Joseph D. Beers, use of William A. Platenius as administrator of James Holford, deceased, brought a case against the State of Arkansas to the Supreme Court in 1857. The plaintiff argued that he was entitled to receive compensation for damages caused by an act passed by the state legislature which allowed certain individuals to take possession and control over his property without due process or just compensation for it. The court found that while there may have been some constitutional issues with how the act was passed and enforced, they ultimately held that since no specific provision had been made in either federal or state law regarding such matters at this time, then any claims would need to be addressed through other means outside of judicial review. As such, they ruled against Joseph D. Beers' claim and dismissed it from consideration on those grounds alone

In the dissenting opinion of Joseph D. Beers, Use of William A. Platenius, as Administrator of James Holford, Deceased v The State of Arkansas and William A. Platenius, Administrator of James Holford, Deceased v The State Of Arkansas cases it was argued that the state had no right to tax land owned by a non-resident decedent at the time he died and which passed into his estate after his death. It was further argued that since there is no law in Arkansas providing for such taxation on property passing from a deceased person to an executor or administrator appointed by another state court then it should not be taxed by the state government either directly or indirectly through its courts. Furthermore it was contended that if this were allowed then other states would have similar laws allowing them to tax property located within their borders even though they may not own said property themselves thus creating an unfair burden on those who do own out-of-state real estate but are unable to protect their interests due to lack of jurisdiction over said lands in question.