Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1891. The case involved a dispute between Dublin Township and Milford Savings Institution over the ownership of a piece of land. Dublin Township claimed that it had acquired the land through a tax sale, while Milford Savings Institution argued that it had acquired the land through a mortgage foreclosure. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Milford Savings Institution, ruling that the mortgage foreclosure was valid and that the tax sale was invalid. The Court held that the mortgage foreclosure was valid because it was done in accordance with the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, and that the tax sale was invalid because it was done without the consent of the mortgagee. The Court also held that the mortgagee had a superior right to the land, and that the tax sale was not sufficient to extinguish the mortgagee's rights. The decision in Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution established the principle that a mortgagee has a superior right to the land over a tax sale, and that a tax sale is not sufficient to extinguish the mortgagee's rights. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving mortgage foreclosures and tax sales.

The dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case of Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution was written by Justice Holmes. He argued that the court should not have granted an injunction to prevent Milford from foreclosing on a mortgage held by Dublin Township, as it would be contrary to established precedent and public policy. In his dissent, he noted that while there may have been some irregularities in how the loan was secured, these were minor issues which did not rise to the level of requiring judicial intervention. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such an injunction would set a dangerous precedent for other similar cases where courts could interfere with private contracts between parties without any clear legal basis or justification for doing so. Ultimately, Justice Holmes concluded that granting this type of relief would be inappropriate and unjustified given all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this particular case.