Lane v. Wallace was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could impose a tax on a non-resident's income from real estate located in the state. The case was brought by a non-resident of the state of Mississippi, who owned real estate in the state and was being taxed on the income from that real estate. The non-resident argued that the tax was unconstitutional, as it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional, as it was a valid exercise of the state's power to tax. The Court noted that the tax was not discriminatory, as it applied equally to all non-residents, regardless of their state of residence. Furthermore, the Court held that the tax was not an undue burden on interstate commerce, as it was a tax on income from real estate located in the state, and not on the interstate movement of goods or services. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Mississippi had the power to impose a tax on the income of non-residents from real estate located in the state, and that the tax did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Lane v. Wallace, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state could require an individual to pay taxes on land that had been granted to them by the federal government. The majority opinion held that states do have this authority and can impose such taxes as they see fit. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that it violated the principle of dual sovereignty between states and the federal government. He reasoned that since Congress has exclusive power over public lands within its jurisdiction, any taxation imposed upon those lands must be done so under Congressional authority rather than through state legislation or action. Furthermore, he noted how allowing states to tax these federally-granted lands would create unequal treatment among citizens in different parts of the country who are subject to different laws regarding taxation depending on their location - something which is not allowed under our Constitution's equal protection clause. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by arguing for a more limited interpretation of state powers when it comes to taxing federally-granted land in order to ensure fairness among all citizens regardless of where they live or what kind of property they own