In the 1902 case of McClung v. Penny, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, McClung, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. Hartman and later discovered that it was already owned by the defendant, Penny. He sued for damages on grounds of fraud and deceit but lost at trial court level due to lack of evidence supporting his claim. The Supreme Court upheld this decision upon appeal stating that there were no errors made during proceedings at lower courts which would warrant an overturning or modification of their judgment. It further clarified that while it is true under California law - if someone sells property they do not own without disclosing this fact to buyer can be held liable for fraud; however proving such requires clear and convincing evidence demonstrating seller's knowledge about their non-ownership status along with intention to deceive. Therefore since McClung failed to provide sufficient proof showing Hartman knew he didn't actually own said land when selling it nor intended defrauding him hence his lawsuit against Penny was dismissed accordingly.

In the dissenting opinion for McClung v. Penny, 1902, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing creditors to seize property from debtors without due process violated constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed this ruling contradicted previous Supreme Court decisions which held that such laws were unconstitutional because they deprived individuals of their property without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that every citizen has an inherent right to be heard before being deprived of any significant property interest and emphasized on maintaining consistency in upholding these fundamental principles across all states regardless of varying local practices or statutes. This view thus disagreed with the majority’s interpretation and application of both federalism and individual rights under constitutionally protected due processes.