Pennsylvania argued for the former, stating that if it were the latter, then New York (where Western Union was then incorporated) would receive a financial windfall.

The Special Master decided to rely on the logic of the previous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. New Jersey.

However, if Western Union does not know who the purchaser or the person who redeemed it is, the money escheats to the state where Western Union is incorporated (e.g. New York at that time; it later reincorporated in Delaware).

Congress would weigh in on the matter two years later by passing the Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act (also known as the Federal Disposition Act or FDA), which decreed (in line with Pennsylvania's arguments) that the state where the money order was purchased should be the state to which unclaimed proceeds escheat, as most people purchase these items in the state of their residence.

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub.