The Robertson v. Gordon, Butler and Vale case in 1912 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of land in Mississippi. The plaintiff, Robertson, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who acquired it through a tax sale. However, the defendants argued that they were rightful owners as they inherited it from their father who owned it before any tax sales occurred. They also contended that there was no valid notice given for such tax sales to take place which made them illegal and voided any subsequent transfers of ownership based on these sales. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants stating that proper notification is essential for conducting legal tax sales according to Mississippi law at the time. Since there was no evidence proving adequate notice was provided prior to these alleged tax sales taking place, all transactions stemming from them were deemed invalid including Robertson's purchase claim. This ruling reinforced how crucial procedural correctness is when dealing with property rights and highlighted potential pitfalls associated with buying properties sold due to unpaid taxes without thorough investigation into its history.

In the dissenting opinion for Robertson v. Gordon, and Butler and Vale, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the defendants (Gordon, Butler and Vale) was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there had been an error made by the trial court when instructing the jury about how to interpret certain evidence related to whether or not a contract existed between all parties involved. They felt this mistake could have influenced the jury's verdict unfairly against Robertson, who claimed he had entered into a valid contract with Gordon but was then wrongfully excluded from its benefits by Butler and Vale. Therefore, they contended that this case should be remanded back down for retrial with proper instructions given on how such evidence should be evaluated under law.