In the case of Halliday v. Stuart, 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Colorado. The plaintiff, Halliday, claimed that he had purchased a parcel of land from an individual who had obtained it under the Preemption Act - legislation allowing settlers to purchase public lands after living on and improving them for at least six months. However, before this transaction occurred, another man named Stuart had already initiated proceedings to acquire this same property through preemption rights but failed to finalize his claim due to insufficient funds. The court ruled in favor of Stuart despite his incomplete payment because he was first in initiating action towards acquiring the property and demonstrated clear intent by making improvements on it as required by law. Furthermore, they found that Halliday's acquisition was invalid since it took place while legal proceedings were still ongoing with respect to Stuart's claim. This decision underscored two key principles: firstly that priority is given based on who first initiates actions toward obtaining property; secondly that one cannot legally buy or sell properties which are currently subject matter of litigation until such disputes have been resolved.

In the dissenting opinion for Halliday v. Stuart, it was argued that a person should not be deprived of their property without due process of law. The justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and believed that it did not allow states to take away an individual's rights or property arbitrarily. They contended that if a state could seize someone’s land simply because they had failed to pay taxes on time, then there would be no limit to what else they might do under similar circumstances. This view held that such actions were unconstitutional as they violated fundamental principles of fairness and justice enshrined in American law since its inception.