Huntington v. State of Texas was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state of Texas had the right to tax the property of a non-resident. The case arose when the state of Texas attempted to collect taxes from a non-resident, William Huntington, on property he owned in the state. Huntington argued that the state had no right to tax him because he was a non-resident. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the state had the right to tax the property of non-residents. The Court reasoned that the state had the right to tax the property of non-residents in order to raise revenue for the state, and that the state had the right to impose taxes on non-residents in order to protect its citizens from unfair competition. The Court also held that the state had the right to impose taxes on non-residents in order to protect its citizens from the burden of supporting non-residents. The Court concluded that the state of Texas had the right to tax the property of non-residents, and that the tax imposed on Huntington was valid.

In the case of Huntington v. State of Texas, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could tax a foreign corporation that had been granted a charter by another state. The majority opinion held that states have no power to impose taxes on corporations chartered in other states and thus ruled in favor of Huntington. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that it is within the right of each state to determine how it will regulate its own internal affairs as long as those regulations do not conflict with federal law or interfere with interstate commerce. He further stated that if Congress has not expressly forbidden such taxation then it should be allowed since there is nothing unconstitutional about taxing foreign corporations operating within one's borders for their benefit. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that while he agreed with the majority opinion regarding federalism principles, he felt strongly enough about his dissenting view to make sure his voice was heard on this issue even though he ultimately lost out on this particular ruling.