In the case of Kissam v. Anderson, 1891, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a New York law that allowed for the seizure and sale of property to satisfy debts violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Kissam, argued that his property had been unlawfully seized by Anderson who acted as a sheriff in executing a judgment against him. The court ruled in favor of Anderson stating that while it is true that every state must respect certain fundamental rights when creating laws related to personal or real property within its jurisdiction; however, these rights do not extend so far as to prevent states from establishing their own procedures for enforcing judgments on such properties. Therefore, they concluded that there was no violation of due process because New York's law did not deprive Kissam of his right to be heard before being deprived of his property but simply provided an alternative method for debt collection.

In the dissenting opinion for Kissam v. Anderson, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to deny a writ of error was incorrect. He believed that there were substantial grounds for disagreement on whether or not certain bonds issued by Kansas City and Wyandotte County were constitutional under state law. The constitutionality issue arose from an ambiguity in language regarding what constituted "indebtedness" - whether it referred only to existing debts at the time of the Constitution’s adoption or if it also included future obligations created by bond issuances like those in question. Brewer contended that this ambiguity warranted further examination and should have been sufficient reason to grant a writ of error, allowing for review and clarification by higher courts.