In the 1899 case of Earle v. Conway, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Earle, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from Conway's father and was therefore its rightful owner. However, Conway argued that his father did not have legal title to sell the property because it belonged to him through inheritance from his mother who died intestate (without leaving a will). The lower court ruled in favor of Conway but on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. They found that although there were irregularities in how Conway’s mother acquired title to the land originally - she bought it at an auction where her husband was acting as trustee for creditors - these issues could not be raised by heirs or devisees after her death since they would also benefit from such irregularities if they existed. Therefore, when she died without leaving a will and under local law her estate passed onto her husband who then sold it to Earle; hence making him its legitimate owner.

In the dissenting opinion for Earle v. Conway, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on gross receipts from interstate commerce conflicted with previous Supreme Court rulings which had found such taxes unconstitutional. The dissent contended that this type of taxation represented an infringement upon federal authority by individual states and could potentially disrupt free trade between states if each were allowed to impose their own taxes on interstate commerce. It was also suggested that allowing these types of state-imposed taxes might lead to retaliatory taxation policies between states, further complicating and hindering interstate commerce. Therefore, in the view of the dissenters, such a tax should not be upheld as constitutional.