In the case of The President, Recorder and Trustees of the City of Cincinnati v. The Lessee of Edward White, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a lessee could be held liable for unpaid taxes on property leased from another party. In this case, Edward White had leased certain real estate to one John Smith in 1815 but failed to pay taxes due on it by 1819. When Smith refused to pay these back taxes upon expiration of his lease in 1820, he was sued by the city trustees who argued that they were entitled to collect them from him as an assignee or successor-in-interest under Ohio law. However, after reviewing all relevant statutes and precedents related to taxation laws in Ohio at that time, the court ultimately ruled against the city trustees and found that Smith could not be held liable for any unpaid taxes owed by White prior to his taking possession of said property; rather those obligations remained with White himself as owner/lessor until such time as he transferred title or interest therein directly over unto someone else.

In the case of The President, Recorder and Trustees of the City of Cincinnati v. The Lessee of Edward White, Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted judgment for the defendant. He reasoned that under Ohio law, when an individual leases land from another person who does not own it at the time they enter into their agreement, then any subsequent owner has no right to interfere with or disturb such leaseholds without first obtaining permission from both parties involved in said contract. Furthermore, Justice Story noted that even if there had been some kind of mistake made by either party during negotiations regarding ownership rights over said property - as was suggested by plaintiff's counsel - this would still be insufficient grounds to grant judgment against them since they were unaware at all times about its true status and thus could not be held liable for any damages caused due to such ignorance. In conclusion, he concluded his dissent by stating that granting judgement against plaintiffs would set a dangerous precedent whereby individuals can easily take advantage of those who are unaware about certain legal matters pertaining to real estate transactions; therefore it is essential for courts to ensure justice is served fairly and equitably regardless circumstances surrounding each particular case before them.