In the 1900 case of Wells v. Savannah, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of Savannah, Georgia. The dispute arose when a property owner named Wells contested that his land was taken by the city without just compensation and due process under eminent domain laws for public use as part of a street improvement project. He argued that he should have been compensated for both his land and buildings on it which were destroyed during this process. However, according to Georgia law at that time, only lands were subject to compensation not improvements or structures upon them in such cases. The court held that while Fifth Amendment rights do protect against seizure without just compensation, these protections apply only to federal actions and not those carried out by states or municipalities unless explicitly stated otherwise within state constitutions themselves - something Georgia's constitution did not provide for at the time. Therefore, since no federal action was involved here but rather an act by a municipality (Savannah), Well's claim was dismissed.

The dissenting opinion in the Wells v. Savannah case argued that the city of Savannah had no right to seize and sell property for unpaid taxes without providing due process of law. The justice believed that this action violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees every citizen equal protection under the law. He contended that seizing property without notice or an opportunity to contest was fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's interpretation of Georgia state laws regarding tax collection procedures, arguing they did not provide sufficient protections for taxpayers' rights as required by federal constitution standards.