In the 1891 case of Finn v. Brown, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Finn, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who held it under a Mexican grant which was later confirmed by the U.S. government after California became part of the United States. However, before this confirmation took place and while still under review by Congress, another party named Brown obtained possession through public auction due to unpaid taxes on said property. The court ruled in favor of Brown stating that although there were irregularities in tax proceedings leading up to his purchase at auction; these did not invalidate his claim as they were cured by subsequent legislation confirming such sales made during pending confirmations of Mexican grants. Furthermore, since Finn failed to pay taxes for several years while waiting for confirmation from Congress about his title's validity - despite being required to do so according to state law - he lost any right or interest he may have had on this property.

In the dissenting opinion for Finn v. Brown, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax sale of property in Kansas City violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that notice by publication alone did not meet constitutional requirements for due process when other methods of notification were available and more likely to reach the affected party. They contended that since there was no evidence showing impossibility or impracticability of personal service, such service should have been attempted before resorting to public notice via newspaper advertisement. This view held that mere convenience or cost-saving measures could not justify depriving an individual of their property without adequate notice and opportunity to contest it in court.