In the case of McKee et al. v. Gratz (1922), the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiffs, heirs of John Fries, claimed that they were entitled to certain properties under his will which had been sold by one of their co-heirs without their consent or knowledge. They argued that this sale was invalid as it violated Pennsylvania state law requiring all heirs to agree before an inherited property could be sold. However, the defendant contended that he purchased these lands in good faith from someone who appeared to have full ownership rights at the time of sale. The Supreme Court held for Gratz, stating that while Pennsylvania law did indeed require unanimous agreement among co-heirs for a valid sale, there was also a statute allowing any purchaser in good faith from an apparent sole heir to acquire clear title regardless if other undisclosed heirs later emerged with claims against such land sales. This ruling affirmed principles protecting innocent third-party purchasers and maintaining stability in real estate transactions even when original sellers may have acted improperly according to state inheritance laws.

In the dissenting opinion for McKee et al. v. Gratz, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Michigan law that allowed cities to tax property owners for public improvements made adjacent to their properties. He argued that this was an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation as required by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. According to him, while it is permissible for governments to levy taxes broadly on all citizens in order to fund public projects, it is not fair or constitutional for only certain individuals who happen own property near these projects bear such costs disproportionately through special assessments. This view suggests a more expansive interpretation of what constitutes "taking" under the Constitution and emphasizes fairness in taxation policy.