In the case of Gorman v. Havird, 1890, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and property rights. The plaintiff, Gorman, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land in South Carolina from an individual who had acquired it through inheritance. However, the defendant Havird argued that he was entitled to this piece of land due to his status as a creditor for another party involved in previous transactions related to this same property. The lower court ruled in favor of Havird based on local law which stated that creditors have priority over heirs when it comes to claiming assets or properties left behind by deceased individuals with outstanding debts. Gorman appealed against this decision arguing that federal laws should supersede state laws regarding such matters and hence his claim should be given precedence over Havird's claims as per federal norms governing real estate transactions across states lines. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling stating that while there may be conflicts between state and federal laws at times; however, unless explicitly mentioned otherwise by Congress - state laws would prevail within their jurisdiction especially concerning issues like probate proceedings or distribution of estates where local customs & practices are deeply entrenched.

In the dissenting opinion for Gorman v. Havird, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a South Carolina law that allowed creditors to seize debtor's property without prior notice or hearing. He argued that this violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which guarantees individuals fair treatment through normal judicial system procedures. According to him, due process requires both notice and an opportunity for a hearing before one can be deprived of their property rights by state action. The law in question did not provide these safeguards and therefore should have been struck down as unconstitutional according to his interpretation of the Constitution.