In the case of Sharpe v. Bonham in 1911, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Sharpe, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had obtained it through inheritance. However, this individual's right to inherit was contested by another party (Bonham), leading to uncertainty about who legally owned the property. The court ruled in favor of Bonham on grounds that his claim predated Sharpe's purchase and thus held more legal weight under existing laws governing inheritance and property rights at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Sharpe v. Bonham, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law allowing creditors to seize property without due process violated constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling contradicted previous court decisions which had established that all citizens have a right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that seizing property without providing an opportunity for a hearing or any form of legal recourse was fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power by creditors and state officials if such seizures were allowed to continue unchecked. Ultimately, they felt strongly that individuals' rights should be protected against arbitrary government action and thus disagreed with the majority's judgment in this case.