The U.S. Supreme Court case Burns Mortgage Co. v. Fried in 1933 revolved around a dispute over the validity of a mortgage lien on property that had been sold at auction due to tax delinquency. The plaintiff, Burns Mortgage Company, held the original mortgage and argued that their lien should have priority over any subsequent claims or liens against the property because they were not properly notified about the sale as required by law. However, defendant Fried contended that he was entitled to clear title after purchasing it from an individual who bought it at public auction following its seizure for unpaid taxes by Cook County in Illinois. The court ruled in favor of Fried, holding that while due process requires notice before depriving someone of their property rights, this requirement does not extend to all situations where one's financial interests might be affected indirectly through proceedings against others (in this case, proceedings against previous owners). Therefore, despite having no knowledge about the tax sale and receiving no formal notification regarding it prior to his purchase of said property from another buyer post-auction; Mr.Fried’s claim was upheld.

The dissenting opinion in the Burns Mortgage Co. v. Fried case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Minnesota law allowing for an extension of redemption periods on foreclosed properties was unconstitutional. The dissent contended that this ruling violated contractual obligations and property rights, as it retroactively altered agreed-upon terms between lenders and borrowers without their consent or compensation for potential losses incurred by such changes. Furthermore, they believed the law unfairly favored debtors at the expense of creditors, thus undermining principles of fairness and justice inherent in contract law. They also expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on credit markets due to increased uncertainty surrounding loan agreements if similar laws were enacted elsewhere.