In the case of Morse v. Anderson in 1893, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership. The plaintiff, Morse, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from an individual who held title to them under a Mexican grant which was later confirmed by the U.S government. However, these lands were also part of a larger tract sold at public auction due to non-payment of direct taxes during and after the Civil War; this larger tract was bought by Anderson's predecessor in interest. The court decided in favor of Anderson based on two primary reasons: first, because Morse failed to pay his tax obligations for several years leading up to and including when it was sold for unpaid taxes; secondly because there is no evidence showing that any notice or demand for payment had been made upon him before sale as required by law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Morse v. Anderson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a certain type of stock was not taxable under Tennessee law, was incorrect. The dissent contended that this interpretation contradicted previous rulings and established legal principles regarding taxation. It asserted that all property should be taxed unless specifically exempted by law, and there was no such exemption for this kind of stock in Tennessee statutes. Furthermore, it suggested the majority had erred by treating these stocks as intangible assets when they were actually tangible properties with real value capable of being bought or sold like any other asset. Thus, according to the dissenting justices' view, these stocks should have been subject to taxation just like any other form of property within state jurisdiction.