John Doe, ex dem. of Catharine Louisa Barbarie, Ann Billup Barde, Daniel R. Brower and Ann B. Brower, his wife, Curtis Lewis and Isabella Lewis, his wife; John T. Lackey and Margaret Lackey; heirs and legal representatives of Robert Farmer deceased v the Mayor Aldermen & Common Council of the City of Mobile & Joseph Clements was a case heard by the US Supreme Court in 1850 which involved a dispute over land ownership rights between private citizens (the plaintiffs) who claimed to be rightful owners due to inheritance from their ancestor Robert Farmer's estate versus The City Of Mobile represented by its mayor aldermen common council as well as Joseph Clements who had purchased part of this disputed property from another party claiming title to it at an auction sale held under authority granted by an act passed by Alabama legislature in 1845 that allowed for such sales when taxes were not paid on certain properties within city limits for two consecutive years or more . After much deliberation ,the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs finding that they were indeed rightful owners based on evidence presented before them thus nullifying any claims made against it through said act passed earlier .

In the case of John Doe, Ex Dem. Of Catharine Louisa Barbarie, Ann Billup Barde, Daniel R. Brower and Ann B. Brower, His Wife, Curtis Lewis and Isabella Lewis, His Wife, John T. Lackey and Margaret Lackey his wife heirs and legal representatives of Robert Farmer deceased v The Mayor Aldermen And Common Council Of The City Of Mobile And Joseph Clements the dissenting opinion was that a state statute could not be used to take away property rights from individuals without due process or compensation for their losses as it would violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution which states that no person shall “be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law” .The dissent argued that this taking by a state statute was unconstitutional because it did not provide any form of compensation for those affected by its application even though they had already acquired vested rights in their properties prior to its enactment. Furthermore they argued that such an act violated natural justice as well as fundamental principles established in common law since time immemorial