In Beloit v. Morgan, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Wisconsin statute that allowed for the sale of mortgaged property without notice to the mortgagor was constitutional. The Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case arose when the defendant, Morgan, purchased a mortgaged property from the plaintiff, Beloit, without notice to the mortgagor. Beloit argued that the statute allowing for the sale of mortgaged property without notice to the mortgagor violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court agreed, holding that the statute was unconstitutional because it deprived the mortgagor of the right to be heard before the property was sold. The Court reasoned that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect the rights of individuals from arbitrary government action. The Court held that the statute in question was arbitrary because it allowed for the sale of mortgaged property without notice to the mortgagor, thus depriving the mortgagor of the right to be heard before the property was sold. The Court concluded that the statute was unconstitutional and that the sale of the mortgaged property was void. The Court also held that the mortgagor was entitled to recover the amount of the mortgage from the purchaser.

In Beloit v. Morgan, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Wisconsin statute that allowed for an appeal to be taken from a judgment of the Circuit Court in certain cases was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not and struck down the law as unconstitutional because it violated Article III of the Constitution which grants original jurisdiction to circuit courts. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that Congress had given states broad authority over their own judicial systems and thus could pass laws granting appellate jurisdiction to state courts without violating Article III. He further argued that since appeals were already being heard by state courts prior to this law's passage, there would be no practical difference between allowing such appeals before or after final judgments were rendered in federal court; therefore striking down this particular statute would create more confusion than clarity within Wisconsin's legal system.