In the case of Pennsylvania v. New York et al., 1971, the Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over which state had rightful claim to abandoned property held by Western Union Telegraph Company. The company's headquarters were in New York but it conducted business nationwide, including in Pennsylvania. Both states claimed that under their respective laws they had rights to escheat (claim) unclaimed money orders issued by Western Union. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of New York, stating that only one state can take custody of abandoned property and that should be the state where the debtor corporation is incorporated - in this case, New York. This decision established an important precedent for determining jurisdiction over unclaimed or abandoned property when businesses operate across multiple states.

In the dissenting opinion of Pennsylvania v. New York et al., Justice William O. Douglas, joined by Justices Hugo Black and Thurgood Marshall, argued that the majority's decision to apply Texas v. New Jersey principles was incorrect because it did not consider the unique circumstances of each case. The dissenters believed that money orders should be treated differently from tangible property since they are essentially debt obligations rather than physical assets. They also disagreed with applying a rule based on corporate domicile for determining which state has priority in claiming abandoned property rights over unclaimed funds from expired money orders issued by Western Union Telegraph Company (a company incorporated in New York). Instead, they suggested a more equitable approach would be to distribute such funds proportionally among all states where these transactions occurred based on their respective shares of total sales or purchases made through this medium during relevant periods.