In the Nalle v. Young case of 1895, Charles F. Nalle contested a tax assessment on his property in Washington D.C., claiming that it was excessive and discriminatory compared to similar properties in the area. The Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that he had not exhausted all available remedies at the local level before bringing his case to federal court. Specifically, he could have paid under protest and then sued for recovery or appealed directly to a board of equalization which has jurisdiction over such matters within the District of Columbia itself. Therefore, since these options were not pursued by Mr.Nalle initially, his claim was dismissed without prejudice so as it can be brought again after following due process.

In the dissenting opinion for Nalle v. Young, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and failed to properly interpret relevant statutes. He contended that under federal law, a judgment creditor has a right to pursue all property owned by the debtor at any time before or after judgment is rendered. Therefore, he believed that it was incorrect for the majority to rule in favor of Mr. Young on grounds that his assets were not subject to seizure because they had been transferred prior to final judgement being entered against him in another case involving different parties. Furthermore, Justice Brewer disagreed with how narrowly the majority interpreted "fraudulent conveyance," arguing instead for broader interpretation which would include transfers made with intent to hinder creditors' ability collect debts owed them.