In the case of Shelton v. King in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on an issue regarding land ownership and inheritance rights. The dispute arose when a man named John T. Shelton claimed that he was entitled to certain lands located in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) as an heir of his deceased brother, William A. Shelton who had received these lands through allotment under federal law for being part Cherokee by blood. However, another party known as J.C King also claimed ownership over this same piece of land due to a mortgage agreement with William before his death. The court held that John's claim was invalid because it failed to recognize the validity of the mortgage agreement between William and King which occurred prior to any potential inheritance claims from relatives like John himself could be considered valid or enforceable under applicable laws at that time period concerning property rights within Indian Territory specifically. This ruling essentially affirmed lower courts' decisions favoring King's position while rejecting arguments presented by John about supposed entitlements based solely upon familial relationships without proper legal documentation supporting such assertions directly related towards actual possession/control over disputed properties involved here overall.

In the dissenting opinion for Shelton v. King, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring segregation in railway cars violated both constitutional principles and previous court rulings. The dissenter contended that this ruling contradicted prior decisions which had established that states could not enforce racial segregation on interstate carriers, as such laws interfered with federal authority over interstate commerce. Furthermore, they believed the law contravened equal protection guarantees by creating separate facilities based solely on race. They also criticized the majority's reliance on social customs and public sentiment to justify their decision, arguing these factors should not influence interpretations of constitutional rights or liberties.