In the case of Manila Investment Company v. Trammell, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Manila Investment Company, reversing a decision made by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. The dispute centered around a piece of land that was sold to settle debts owed by Mr. Trammell's deceased wife's estate; however, Mr. Trammell claimed he had not been properly notified about this sale and therefore it should be considered invalid under due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that while there were some irregularities in how notice was given for the sale (it was posted on an outer door rather than delivered directly), these did not amount to a denial of due process as long as they did not result in actual harm or prejudice against Mr. Trammell’s interests. Furthermore, since Mr.Trummel failed to take action during several years after learning about his property being sold and continued living on said property without paying rent or taxes - which would have been required if he acknowledged new ownership - his claim lacked merit.

In the dissenting opinion for Manila Investment Company v. Trammell, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Trammell contradicted established legal principles regarding contract law and property rights. The dissent emphasized that Manila Investment Company had entered into a valid contract with another party who later sold their interest to Trammell without Manila's consent or knowledge. This action, according to the dissent, violated basic tenets of contractual agreements which require mutual assent from all involved parties. Furthermore, they contended that allowing such transfers would undermine confidence in business transactions and create uncertainty around property ownership rights as any third party could potentially acquire an interest in a contract without prior agreement from existing parties.