The Osborne v. Gray case in 1915 revolved around a dispute between the Chattanooga Southern Railroad Company and one of its shareholders, Gray. The railroad company had been placed into receivership due to financial difficulties, with Osborne appointed as receiver. However, Gray claimed that his rights as a shareholder were violated because he was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard before the appointment of the receiver. He also argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over him because he lived out-of-state from where the proceedings took place. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against Gray on both counts. It held that since receivership did not directly affect his property rights but only managerial control over assets, no personal notice was required for such proceedings under due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment; it merely changed who managed corporate assets while leaving ownership unaffected. Regarding jurisdictional issue, it found that courts could exercise power over corporations incorporated within their state regardless of where shareholders resided - thus they had authority to appoint a receiver without needing personal jurisdiction over each individual shareholder.

In the dissenting opinion for Osborne v. Gray, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Chattanooga Southern Railroad Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the company had not been given an adequate opportunity to present its case and defend itself against allegations of financial mismanagement. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain legal principles related to receivership and corporate law, arguing that these interpretations were overly broad and could potentially harm other businesses in similar situations in future cases. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on shareholders' rights as well as broader economic implications if such rulings were allowed to stand unchallenged.