In the 1917 case of Talley v. Burgess et al., the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Talley, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from Native American allottees before they received patents for their allotted lands and argued that these sales were valid under federal law. However, the defendants (Burgess and others) who later acquired titles to those same lands contested this claim. They asserted that such pre-patent sales were prohibited by an Act of Congress intended to protect Native Americans from being defrauded out of their property rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Burgess and his co-defendants, upholding lower court decisions which found against Talley's claims on similar grounds. The justices held that any sale or contract made prior to issuance of a patent was void as per Congressional legislation enacted specifically to safeguard Native American interests during the process of allotment.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Talley v. Burgess et al., 1917, argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation and application of legal principles related to property rights and inheritance laws. The dissent emphasized that under existing law, a widow was entitled to her dower right or share from her deceased husband's estate regardless of any debts he may have owed at his death. It further contended that this principle should apply even if the debt was secured by a mortgage on real estate owned by the deceased husband. In such cases, according to the dissenters, it is not fair or just for creditors to claim priority over a surviving spouse's rightful inheritance simply because they hold security interests in property assets within an estate.