The U.S. Supreme Court case Branson, Sheriff and Collector of Crawford County, et al. v. Bush, Receiver of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company in 1919 revolved around a dispute over tax assessments on railway property in Arkansas by local authorities against the receiver appointed for the insolvent railroad company by a federal court in Missouri. The receiver argued that he was not liable to pay these taxes as they were levied after his appointment and without his consent or that of the appointing court; thus violating principles of comity between state and federal courts. The Supreme Court ruled against this argument stating that while receivership did protect assets from seizure or interference during litigation proceedings under normal circumstances; it did not exempt them from taxation which is an inherent power exercised by states over all property within their jurisdiction irrespective of ownership status unless explicitly prohibited by law.

In the dissenting opinion for Branson v. Bush, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a receiver of a railway company to avoid paying taxes on property in Arkansas contradicted previous rulings and principles of federalism. The dissenters believed that while receivership may protect properties from certain claims, it should not exempt them from state taxation as this would undermine states' rights and sovereignty. They also pointed out inconsistencies with past cases where receivers were required to pay taxes on similar properties under their control. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an 1868 Act by Congress which they believe did not intend to grant such tax exemptions. In essence, the dissenting justices felt that allowing federally-appointed receiverships to evade state taxation could set a dangerous precedent undermining states' fiscal autonomy.