In the 1899 case of Scudder v. Comptroller of New York, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, upholding a tax imposed by New York on securities held out-of-state by its residents. The plaintiff, Scudder, was a resident and trustee in Massachusetts who held bonds for a New Yorker. He argued that since he physically possessed these bonds outside of NY state lines (in MA), they should not be subject to taxation by NY State. However, the court disagreed with this argument stating that it is within states' rights to tax personal property owned by their citizens regardless if it's located elsewhere or not under their immediate control at all times - as long as there isn't any specific constitutional prohibition against such taxation. This decision reaffirmed states' authority over taxing intangible properties like stocks and bonds even when they are physically located outside state boundaries.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Scudder v. Comptroller of New York argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the Supreme Court. The dissenters contended that a state cannot tax property located outside its jurisdiction, regardless if it is owned by a resident or not. They believed this principle to be fundamental to our federal system, which limits states' power over interstate commerce and prevents them from imposing burdens on out-of-state properties. In their view, allowing such taxation would lead to double taxation and potentially create conflicts between states over taxing rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "domicile," arguing that it should not determine where personal property is taxed but rather where an individual resides for legal purposes like voting or jury duty.