In the case of Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. San Francisco, 1905, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hibernia Savings & Loan Society. The dispute arose when the city and county of San Francisco attempted to tax a mortgage held by Hibernia on property located outside its jurisdictional boundaries. The court determined that while real estate is subject to taxation where it is situated, personal property (such as mortgages) should be taxed at the owner's domicile unless there are specific statutory provisions stating otherwise. Therefore, since no such provision existed in this case, taxing a mortgage owned by an entity based within one jurisdiction on property located in another was deemed unconstitutional under California law.

In the dissenting opinion for Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. San Francisco, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment on money held by a savings and loan society as cash assets was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this interpretation of California law unfairly penalized financial institutions like Hibernia Savings & Loan Society for holding large amounts of cash in order to meet their obligations to depositors. They contended that such funds should not be considered taxable property because they were essentially liabilities rather than assets, given they could be withdrawn at any time by account holders. Therefore, taxing these funds would amount to double taxation since individual depositors also paid taxes on their accounts' balances. This view maintained that the ruling contradicted established principles of equity and fairness in taxation policy.