In the case of Marye, Auditor, and Others v. Parsons, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state could tax the income of a non-resident. The case involved a dispute between the State of Maryland and a non-resident, Parsons, who had received income from a Maryland corporation. The State of Maryland argued that it had the right to tax the income of non-residents, while Parsons argued that the state did not have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the State of Maryland, ruling that the state had the right to tax the income of non-residents. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was an inherent power of the state, and that the state had the right to impose taxes on non-residents in order to protect its own citizens. The Court also noted that the state had the right to impose taxes on non-residents in order to raise revenue for the state. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Maryland, finding that the state had the right to tax the income of non-residents. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was an inherent power of the state, and that the state had the right to impose taxes on non-residents in order to protect its own citizens and to raise revenue for the state.

In the case of Marye, Auditor, and Others v. Parsons, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a suit brought by citizens of one state against another in order to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. The majority opinion held that such suits were not within the jurisdiction of any state court because they involved controversies between two states which could only be resolved by federal courts or through diplomatic channels. Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that it would deprive individuals who have been wronged by other states from seeking justice in their own courts. He argued that while Congress has exclusive authority over disputes between two states, there is no reason why individual citizens should not be able to seek redress for injuries suffered at the hands of another state's government in their own local courts if those same rights are available when dealing with private parties or foreign governments. Furthermore, he noted that allowing individuals access to their local judicial systems would help ensure fairness and prevent potential abuses by powerful entities like sovereign nations.