In the 1902 case of Thayer v. Spratt, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Thayer, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. Pioche in 1863 and subsequently paid all taxes on it until 1891 when defendant Spratt allegedly wrongfully took possession of it. However, the court found that there was no evidence to support this claim as Thayer could not provide any legal documentation proving his purchase or tax payments for said property over those years; thus failing to establish an uninterrupted chain of title necessary under Californian law to prove adverse possession (a method by which someone may acquire another's real property without compensation). Furthermore, even if such evidence existed but was lost or destroyed as argued by Thayer’s counsel - this would still be insufficient since mere payment of taxes is not enough to constitute adverse possession without actual continuous occupation and use for five years prior to bringing action against alleged intruder (Spratt). Therefore, judgment affirmed in favor of defendant.

In the dissenting opinion for Thayer v. Spratt, the justice argued that there was a clear violation of due process in this case. The defendant's property rights were infringed upon when he was not given an opportunity to be heard before his land was sold at a tax sale. The justice contended that it is unconstitutional to deprive someone of their property without proper notice and an opportunity to contest such action, regardless of whether or not they owe taxes on said property. He believed that the majority ruling failed to uphold fundamental principles of fairness and due process as guaranteed by the Constitution, thereby setting a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.