In the case of Wellford v. Snyder in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Virginia statute that allowed for the seizure and sale of property belonging to non-residents violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Wellford, had his land seized by Snyder who acted as an agent for creditors seeking repayment from Wellford's son-in-law. The court ruled in favor of Snyder stating that there was no violation because notice had been given through publication as required by state law and thus met constitutional requirements for due process. This decision affirmed states' rights to enforce their own laws regarding debt collection so long as they do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.

The dissenting opinion in the Wellford v. Snyder case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. The dissent contended that a mortgagee should not be allowed to bid on a property at their own foreclosure sale, as it could lead to unfair practices and potential manipulation of the process for personal gain. They also disagreed with allowing an individual who had no claim or title to the property before its purchase at auction, suddenly acquire rights superior to those of other interested parties simply by virtue of being highest bidder. This view held that such actions were contrary to established legal precedents aimed at ensuring fairness in transactions involving real estate properties under foreclosure proceedings.