The U.S. Supreme Court case Carothers v. Mayer in 1896 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of certain legal documents related to it. The plaintiff, Carothers, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from the defendant, Mayer's father-in-law who was deceased at the time of trial. However, Mayer argued that his father-in-law did not have valid title to sell because he obtained it through fraudulent means - specifically by using an invalid power-of-attorney document supposedly signed by the original owner (who was also deceased). The court found insufficient evidence to prove fraud on part of Mayer's father-in-law or any misconduct in obtaining said power-of-attorney document and therefore ruled in favor of Carothers' claim for rightful ownership.

The dissenting opinion in the Carothers v. Mayer case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. The dissenting justices believed that a mortgagee should not be allowed to bid on a property at their own foreclosure sale, especially when there are other interested buyers present who could potentially offer more money for it. They contended that allowing such actions would essentially allow mortgagees to manipulate sales and unfairly profit from them, which goes against the principle of fairness upon which equitable rules are based. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and earlier ones where courts had ruled against similar practices by executors or trustees selling estate properties at their own auctions. Thus, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of existing laws and precedents regarding these matters.