The Ontario Land Company v. Wilfong case in 1911 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of certain deeds. The plaintiff, Ontario Land Company, claimed that it had acquired valid title to several parcels of land through tax sales conducted by the state of West Virginia. However, the defendant, Wilfong, argued that these tax sales were invalid because they did not comply with statutory requirements for notice and due process under West Virginia law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wilfong stating that while there may have been irregularities in how taxes were assessed or collected on these lands prior to their sale at auction; such issues did not invalidate subsequent transfers of title if purchasers acted in good faith without knowledge about any potential defects or problems with previous transactions involving same properties.

In the dissenting opinion for Ontario Land Company v. Wilfong, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Wilfong was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the land company had not been given an adequate opportunity to present its case and defend its rights before being forced to pay damages. They felt that this violated principles of due process and fair play, as well as potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future cases involving property disputes or other complex legal issues where one party might be disadvantaged by procedural irregularities or biases in how their case is handled by the courts. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant laws and precedents related to land ownership and contract enforcement, arguing instead for a more conservative approach which would have favored protecting established property rights over awarding compensation based on disputed claims or perceived injustices.