In the case of Rutherford et al. Plaintiffs in Error versus Fisher et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could tax land owned by citizens of another state. The plaintiffs argued that such taxation violated Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution which states that "the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities" in other States. The defendants countered that they had a right under their own laws to impose taxes on non-residents who held property within their borders. After considering both sides' arguments, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered an opinion for the majority stating that while states have some authority over lands within their boundaries, this power does not extend so far as to allow them to tax land belonging to citizens from other states without violating constitutional rights granted by Article IV, Section 2. He concluded with his famous statement: “The power claimed is too extensive and indefinite; it would subvert one great principle established by our constitution—that no State shall interfere with or control persons or property beyond its own limits."

In the case of Rutherford et al. Plaintiffs in Error v. Fisher et al., Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to uphold an act of Tennessee which allowed for escheats, or forfeiture, of land from individuals who had failed to pay taxes on it. He argued that such acts were unconstitutional because they violated Article I Section 10 Clause 1 of the Constitution which states "No State shall pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." The Chief Justice reasoned that by allowing for escheatment without compensation and regardless if there was a breach in contract between parties involved with regards to payment for said land constituted as impairment and therefore should be declared void under this clause. Furthermore he believed it would set a dangerous precedent if these laws were upheld since other States could potentially follow suit and create similar legislation leading to further erosion away from individual rights granted by our Constitution.