In the 1902 case of Potter v. Hall, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in North Carolina. The plaintiff, William A. Potter, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had obtained it through inheritance from his father's estate. However, the defendant argued that this was not possible as the original owner did not have any legal heirs and thus his property should have escheated (reverted back) to the state upon his death due to lack of direct descendants or will stipulations. The court ruled in favor of Mr.Potter stating that under North Carolina law at that time period (late 19th century), illegitimate children were recognized as lawful heirs if their parents later married each other - which was found to be true for this case scenario where such marriage occurred after child’s birth but before father’s death.

In the dissenting opinion for Potter v. Hall, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law taxing national bank shares at a higher rate than other moneyed capital in hands of individual citizens contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings. The dissent emphasized that such differential taxation violated federal law, specifically Revised Statutes § 5219 which prohibits states from imposing taxes on national banks' shares exceeding those levied on other similar property types. It further pointed out inconsistencies in how different forms of property were classified and taxed under Kentucky law, arguing this resulted in unequal treatment contrary to the intent of federal legislation designed to ensure uniformity and fairness across all states. The dissent also criticized the majority's interpretation of what constitutes 'moneyed capital', asserting their narrow definition excluded many forms of wealth thereby creating an unfair tax burden on national bank shareholders.