In the case of McHenry v. Alford in 1897, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, McHenry, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who was not legally capable to sell it because they did not have clear title to the land at the time of sale. However, this person later acquired valid title and then sold it again to another party (Alford). The court ruled in favor of Alford on grounds that when someone sells a property without having legal rights but later acquires those rights before selling it again to another buyer with no knowledge about previous transactions or disputes; such subsequent conveyance validates earlier defective one and secures good title for latter purchaser. This principle is known as "estoppel by deed" which prevents first seller from denying validity of his/her own act against innocent third parties relying upon its apparent legality.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McHenry v. Alford argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which allowed for the seizure and sale of property owned by a debtor who had fled the state, was incorrect. The dissent contended that such an action violated due process rights under both federal and state laws. They maintained that seizing someone's property without giving them proper notice or opportunity to defend themselves is fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional. Furthermore, they asserted that just because someone leaves their home state does not mean they forfeit their right to due process protections within it; thus, even if Mr. McHenry had left Alabama (as alleged), his property should still have been protected from arbitrary seizure by creditors like Mr. Alford.