In Taylor v. Taintor, Treasurer, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court could issue a writ of attachment against a non-resident defendant. The plaintiff, Taylor, had obtained a judgment against the defendant, Taintor, in a state court in Massachusetts. The defendant had left the state, and the plaintiff sought to enforce the judgment by having a writ of attachment issued against the defendant's property in another state. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of attachment against the defendant's property in another state. The Court reasoned that the writ of attachment was an exercise of the state's power to enforce its judgments, and that the state could not exercise its power beyond its own borders. The Court concluded that the writ of attachment was invalid and that the plaintiff could not enforce the judgment against the defendant's property in another state.

In Taylor v. Taintor, Treasurer (1872), the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bail bond could be forfeited when a defendant failed to appear in court after being released on bail. The majority opinion held that such forfeiture was permissible under state law and did not violate any constitutional rights. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it violated due process protections guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as other provisions of federal law. He argued that while states had broad authority over criminal proceedings within their borders, they were limited in how far they could go with respect to punishing individuals for failing to appear in court without first providing them with notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing penalties or forfeitures against them.