Mccready v. Virginia 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 property located in the state. The case was brought by a Virginia resident, Mccready, who owned property in the state of Virginia but lived in the state of Maryland. Mccready argued that the Virginia tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Virginia tax was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause did not prohibit a state from taxing a non-resident's income from property located within the state. The Court noted that the tax was imposed on the property itself, not on the non-resident's income, and that the tax was applied uniformly to all property owners, regardless of their residency. The Court also noted that the tax was not so onerous as to be oppressive or confiscatory. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Virginia tax on non-resident's income from property located in the state was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the tax was applied uniformly and was not so onerous as to be oppressive or confiscatory.

In McCready v. Virginia, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could tax bonds issued by another state without violating the Constitution's Contract Clause. The majority of justices held that states have broad authority to impose taxes on out-of-state entities and that such taxation does not violate the Contract Clause as long as it is applied in an evenhanded manner. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that allowing one state to tax another would lead to chaos and confusion between states and interfere with interstate commerce. He argued further that if each state were allowed to levy its own taxes on other states' obligations, then those obligations would be rendered worthless since no one would want them due to their high cost of ownership. Furthermore, he noted that while some might argue for uniformity in taxation among all states, such uniformity should not come at the expense of impairing contracts already made between two or more parties prior to any new laws being passed regarding taxation