In the case of Eidman v. Martinez in 1901, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and tax law in Texas. The plaintiff, Eidman, was a tax collector who had seized land owned by Martinez for unpaid taxes. However, Martinez claimed that he had already paid his taxes to another collector before Eidman took office and therefore should not have been subjected to seizure of his property for non-payment of taxes. The court sided with Martinez, ruling that once a taxpayer has paid their due amount to an authorized officer (even if they are no longer in office), they cannot be held liable for those same taxes again by another officer or entity later on.

In the dissenting opinion for Eidman v. Martinez, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Texas law prohibiting foreign corporations from doing business in the state unless they had an agent within its borders violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that this law unfairly discriminated against out-of-state businesses by imposing on them burdens not placed on domestic corporations, thus violating their rights under equal protection clause. Furthermore, it was asserted that requiring these companies to maintain an agent within Texas constituted a deprivation of property without due process of law as it forced them into potentially costly arrangements simply to operate within the state. In essence, while recognizing states' rights to regulate commerce within their boundaries, this dissent emphasized constitutional protections afforded all entities operating across those lines.