In Stuart v. Hayden, the U.S Supreme Court examined a dispute over land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Stuart, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Hayden argued that he had been living on and improving the property for several years under an agreement with a man named Clark who allegedly bought it at a tax sale during which time no one else claimed ownership of said land. The court ruled in favor of Hayden stating that his continuous possession and improvement of the property gave him superior title to it even though there were irregularities in how Clark obtained it at tax sale originally; these irregularities did not invalidate Hayden's claim because they were not challenged within two years as required by law.

In the dissenting opinion for Stuart v. Hayden, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing creditors to seize debtor's 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. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential abuse by creditors and believed it was essential for courts to provide safeguards against arbitrary seizures of property. In his view, due process required at least some form of notice and hearing before deprivation of one’s property could occur legally.