The Ownbey v. Morgan case in 1920 revolved around the legality of a contract for the sale of land and whether it was enforceable under Oklahoma law. The plaintiff, Ownbey, had entered into an agreement with J.J. McAlester to purchase certain lands in Oklahoma but later discovered that these lands were part of an estate being administered by executors (Morgan et al.). When they refused to honor the contract made by McAlester, Ownbey sued them for specific performance or damages. The Supreme Court ruled against Ownbey on two grounds: firstly, because he knew at the time of entering into his contract with McAlester that there were legal proceedings pending concerning ownership rights over these lands; secondly, because he failed to take necessary steps required under state law before filing suit - namely giving notice and opportunity for redemption to all parties involved including creditors and heirs. This ruling affirmed lower court decisions which held that contracts involving property subject to probate administration are not binding unless approved by a probate court or until after distribution has been completed. It also highlighted how important it is for potential buyers to ensure they have clear title before purchasing real estate.

In the dissenting opinion for Ownbey v. Morgan, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing creditors to seize property without prior notice or hearing violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that such laws were unconstitutional as they deprived individuals of their property without giving them an opportunity to challenge the seizure in court beforehand. Furthermore, he criticized these laws for not providing sufficient safeguards against potential abuses by creditors and believed they could lead to unjust outcomes if left unchecked. In his view, any law permitting such actions should at least require some form of preliminary inquiry before execution is allowed on a debtor’s assets.