In the 1901 case of Hatfield v. King, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in West Virginia. The plaintiff, Ephraim Hatfield, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from William King and his wife through an agent named John Ferrell. However, after receiving payment for the property, King denied having authorized Ferrell to sell it on his behalf and refused to transfer ownership rights to Hatfield. The court ruled in favor of Hatfield based on evidence showing that Ferrell was indeed acting as an agent for King at the time of sale and therefore had legal authority to complete the transaction. This decision established important precedents regarding agency law and affirmed that individuals can be held accountable for actions taken by their agents within scope of their authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Hatfield v. King, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Mr. King was incorrect and unjustified by law or precedent. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant procedural errors made during the trial which should have resulted in its dismissal rather than an affirmation of the verdict. They also disagreed with how evidence had been interpreted and applied by both the original jury and appellate judges, arguing that these misinterpretations significantly impacted Mr. Hatfield’s ability to receive a fair trial under due process rights guaranteed by constitutionally protected principles of justice.