Walnut v. Wade was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could impose a tax on the transfer of real estate. The case was brought by the plaintiff, Walnut, who argued that the state of Ohio had imposed a tax on the transfer of real estate without providing any compensation to the owner. The Supreme Court held that the state of Ohio had the right to impose a tax on the transfer of real estate, but that the tax must be reasonable and not confiscatory. The Court also held that the state must provide some form of compensation to the owner of the real estate in order to make the tax valid. The Court's decision in Walnut v. Wade established the principle that a state may impose a tax on the transfer of real estate, but that the tax must be reasonable and not confiscatory. The Court also held that the state must provide some form of compensation to the owner of the real estate in order to make the tax valid. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to support the idea that a state may impose taxes on the transfer of real estate, but that the taxes must be reasonable and not confiscatory.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Walnut v. Wade, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of any subsequent changes to state laws or regulations. In this case, he believed that the original agreement between Walnut and Wade should have been enforced as written despite later changes to Mississippi law which would have allowed for an increase in interest rates after defaulting on payments. Justice Field further argued that if such agreements were not respected by courts then it could lead to chaos within contracts since creditors would no longer feel secure when entering into agreements with debtors due to fear of their terms being changed at any time without notice or consent from either party involved. He concluded his dissent by stating that while he did not agree with all aspects of the majority's ruling, he still felt compelled to uphold it out of respect for stare decisis - a legal principle which holds precedence over new rulings unless there are compelling reasons otherwise - but urged future courts considering similar cases take heed and reverse what had been decided here today so as not create confusion amongst contractual obligations going forward