In the case of Maguire v. Trefry, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1919 on a dispute involving taxation and property rights. The appellant, Maguire, was a resident of New York who owned shares in Massachusetts corporations that held real estate within their assets. The Tax Commissioner of Massachusetts levied an inheritance tax on these shares after they were transferred to Maguire's heirs upon his death. However, Maguire’s representatives argued that this constituted double taxation as the properties had already been taxed in New York where he resided. The court upheld the decision by lower courts allowing for such taxes to be imposed by Massachusetts based on its jurisdiction over tangible property located within its borders even if it is indirectly owned through corporate stocks by non-residents or their estates elsewhere. This ruling affirmed states' rights to levy taxes on intangible personal property (like corporate stock) when there is sufficient connection between said state and either the owner or beneficiary - regardless if another state has also exercised its taxing power over same asset due to different connections.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Maguire v. Trefry, argued that Massachusetts' inheritance tax law was not unconstitutional as it did not violate the Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that a state cannot impose an inheritance tax on property located outside its jurisdiction, arguing instead that such taxation is within a state's rights if there exists sufficient connection between the decedent and his/her property to justify it. He further contended that this connection existed because Mr. Maguire had been domiciled in Massachusetts at his death and therefore owed allegiance to its laws during his lifetime which gave him protection for all his properties wherever they were situated.