In the 1906 case of Clark v. Gerstlet, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights in New Orleans. The plaintiff, Clark, claimed that he had purchased a piece of land from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Gerstlet argued that she had also bought the same land from another party who claimed ownership at an earlier date than Clark's purchase. The lower court ruled in favor of Gerstlet based on Louisiana state law which stated that if two people have valid titles to a property but one person has possession and uses it for more than one year without any legal action taken by other claimants then they become rightful owners (prescription). On appeal however, the U.S Supreme Court reversed this decision stating federal law takes precedence over state laws when dealing with issues related to public lands; hence prescription does not apply here because under federal law there is no such provision allowing someone to gain title merely through possession or use.

In the dissenting opinion for Clark v. Gerstlet, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and violated principles of equity. He contended that a mortgagee should not be allowed to purchase property at their own foreclosure sale unless there is clear evidence that all parties involved were aware of this possibility and agreed to it beforehand. In his view, allowing such purchases would create an inherent conflict of interest because it incentivizes mortgagees to undervalue properties in order to buy them cheaply at auction. This could result in significant financial harm for mortgagors who are already struggling financially due to being unable to keep up with their mortgage payments. Furthermore, he believed that even if such purchases were permitted under certain circumstances, they should still be subject to scrutiny by courts in order ensure fairness and prevent abuse.