In the case of Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Purdy in 1913, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a mortgage foreclosure and subsequent property sale. The bank had foreclosed on Mr. Purdy's property due to his failure to repay his loan and sold it at auction for less than its appraised value, which was also less than the amount owed by Mr. Purdy to the bank. After this sale, there remained an unpaid balance on Mr.Purdy’s debt that he refused to pay off claiming that he should not be held liable as the selling price was unfairly low compared with market value of said property. The court sided with Amoskeag Savings Bank stating that even though they sold it for less than its appraised value, they were still entitled to recover any remaining balance from Mr.Purdy after applying proceeds from such sale towards repayment of his debt because there is no legal requirement mandating them or any creditor in similar situation,to sell foreclosed properties at their full market values.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Purdy, it was argued that there were significant issues with how the majority interpreted and applied New Hampshire's laws regarding mortgage foreclosures. The dissenting justices believed that these interpretations did not align with established legal principles or precedents in other jurisdictions. They also disagreed with how the majority handled certain factual aspects of this particular case, including its treatment of a key witness’s testimony and its assessment of whether or not due diligence had been exercised by all parties involved in attempting to sell a property before resorting to foreclosure proceedings. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential negative implications for future cases if such an interpretation were allowed to stand as precedent.