In the 1908 case of Murray, McSween, and Patton v. State of South Carolina ex rel. Ray, Trustee, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over state property rights in South Carolina. The plaintiffs were members of the State Dispensary Commission who had been appointed to liquidate assets following the abolition of a state-run alcohol monopoly known as "The Dispensary". They argued that they should be allowed to continue their work despite legal challenges from creditors seeking payment for debts incurred by The Dispensary system before its dissolution. However, defendant Ray claimed that these assets belonged not to The Dispensary but rather directly to the state itself and thus could not be used for debt repayment without legislative approval. The court ruled in favor of Ray on grounds that under South Carolina law at this time all public property was owned by the state unless explicitly designated otherwise; since no such designation existed for The Dispensary's assets they must therefore belong to South Carolina outright rather than any specific agency or commission within it.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Murray, McSween, and Patton v. State of South Carolina ex rel. Ray argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing for the seizure and sale of alcohol was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed that this action violated property rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it did not provide sufficient notice or opportunity for hearing before depriving individuals of their property. They also contended that such seizures were essentially criminal punishments without trial, violating protections against unreasonable searches and seizures under Fourth Amendment principles incorporated into state law through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.