Chaffin v. Taylor was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could impose a tax on a non-resident's income from property located within the state. The case was brought by a non-resident of the state of Virginia, who owned property in the state and was being taxed on the income he received from it. The Supreme Court held that the state of Virginia had the right to impose a tax on the non-resident's income from the property located within the state. The Court reasoned that the power to tax is an inherent power of the state, and that the state has the right to impose taxes on non-residents who own property within the state. The Court also noted that the tax imposed on the non-resident was not discriminatory, as it was the same rate as that imposed on residents of the state. The Court further noted that the tax was not an undue burden on the non-resident, as it was not excessive or oppressive. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Virginia had the right to impose a tax on the non-resident's income from the property located within the state. The Court reasoned that the power to tax is an inherent power of the state, and that the tax imposed on the non-resident was not discriminatory or an undue burden.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Chaffin v. Taylor, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound public policy. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is beneficial or detrimental to either party involved. Furthermore, he noted that if contracts were not enforced as written then individuals would have no incentive to enter into them in good faith since they could simply repudiate their obligations when it became inconvenient for them. Justice Field also pointed out that while some may view certain contracts as being oppressive or unconscionable, this does not give courts the right to interfere with private agreements unless there is clear evidence of fraud or duress on one side. As such, he concluded by stating his belief that the court should have upheld the lower court's ruling and allowed Mr Taylor's claim against Mr Chaffin for breach of contract stand