In the case of Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee District, the U.S Supreme Court in 1913 ruled on a dispute over land ownership and taxation between a private company and a public entity. The lumber company argued that it owned certain lands within Arkansas based on an 1850 federal law granting swampy areas to states for reclamation purposes, which were then sold to them by the state government. However, these lands were also claimed by St Francis Levee District under an 1867 Act aimed at facilitating levee construction for flood control along Mississippi River tributaries; they had been taxing Chapman & Dewey accordingly as well. The court held that while both laws intended to grant such lands to aid development projects beneficial to public welfare - drainage or levees - there was no conflict because each operated independently in its own sphere without interfering with rights granted under another act unless explicitly provided so. Therefore, since the later act did not expressly repeal or modify earlier grants like those made under Swamp Land Act of 1850 (which included provision against subsequent adverse claims), it could not affect titles already vested before its enactment date i.e., those purchased from state by Chapman & Dewey Lumber Company who thus remained rightful owners free from any tax liability towards St Francis Levee District.

In the dissenting opinion for Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee District, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision that a state law allowing levee districts to tax private property was constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. He argued that this taxation violated due process rights as it did not provide an opportunity for affected parties to contest their liability before being subjected to such taxes. Furthermore, he contended that there was no clear connection between the benefits received by landowners and the amount of tax levied on them, which made it arbitrary and unjustifiable in his view.