In the 1936 case of Shapleigh et al. v. Mier, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership along the Texas-Mexico border. The Rio Grande River, which forms part of this border, had gradually shifted its course over time due to natural processes such as erosion and accretion (the gradual addition or loss of land). This resulted in some lands that were originally on the Mexican side ending up on the American side and vice versa. The plaintiffs argued that they owned these lands based on old Spanish and Mexican grants while defendants claimed ownership under Texas law by virtue of their possession for more than ten years prior to suit. The court ruled in favor of defendants stating that changes brought about by slow and imperceptible degrees through erosion or accretion did not affect property boundaries established by international treaties between Mexico and United States; hence those who possessed these lands under color title from State laws could claim them as theirs even if they were originally granted to others under Spanish/Mexican rule before boundary establishment.

In the dissenting opinion for Shapleigh et al. v. Mier, Justice Cardozo expressed his disagreement with the majority's decision to uphold a Texas law that allowed creditors to seize property from debtors without prior notice or hearing. He argued that this violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional. In his view, such laws were fundamentally unfair as they deprived individuals of their property without giving them an opportunity to contest it in court first. He also criticized the majority's reliance on precedent cases which he believed did not apply because they involved different circumstances where immediate seizure was necessary for public safety or health reasons - conditions not present in this case.