In the case of Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, Administratrix (1925), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that non-resident corporations doing business in a state are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The plaintiff, Metcalf & Eddy, was an engineering firm incorporated in Massachusetts but contracted by Rhode Island for services related to sewage disposal system design and construction supervision. After completing their work, they were sued by Mrs. Mitchell who claimed damages from her husband’s death allegedly caused by negligence during this project. The company argued that since it was not a resident of Rhode Island and had no property there except for its contract with the city, it could not be subjected to suit without violating its constitutional right to due process as per Fourteenth Amendment. The court agreed with them stating that while states have power over foreign corporations operating within their borders; they cannot deprive such entities of property without following proper legal procedures which includes giving them fair notice and opportunity for hearing before imposing liability.

The dissenting opinion in the Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell case argued that the Massachusetts law, which allowed for a suit against an out-of-state defendant to be initiated by attaching their property within state borders, was not unconstitutional. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that this violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of non-resident defendants who were not personally served notice within state lines. He contended that as long as there is some form of notification and opportunity to defend oneself - even if it is through publication or attachment proceedings - then due process requirements are met. Furthermore, he pointed out that historically such practices have been deemed acceptable and constitutional by courts across different states including Massachusetts itself where this case originated from.