In the case of Innes v. Tobin, Sheriff of Bexar County, Texas in 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and jurisdictional boundaries between federal and state courts. The plaintiff, Mr. Innes had purchased land at a foreclosure sale conducted by a federal court in Oklahoma but was denied possession by local authorities in Texas who claimed that they were acting under orders from their own state court system to protect the interests of another claimant to the same property (Mr. Tobin). The Supreme Court held that when there is concurrent jurisdiction over an issue or piece of property between federal and state courts - as was true here - neither can interfere with each other's proceedings or decisions unless specifically authorized by Congress to do so; otherwise it would violate principles of comity among different jurisdictions within our legal system.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Innes v. Tobin, Sheriff of Bexar County, Texas argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and undermined the principle of federalism. The dissent believed that a state court should have jurisdiction over a dispute involving property located within its borders, even if one party is not physically present in the state. They contended that due process does not require physical presence for jurisdiction but rather sufficient contact or connection with the state. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and earlier decisions where non-resident defendants were subjected to suits in states where they had property or business dealings despite their absence from those jurisdictions during litigation proceedings.