In the 1895 case of Eddy v. Lafayette, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and taxation. The plaintiff, Eddy, owned land in Louisiana that was sold at auction by local authorities due to unpaid taxes. The defendant, Lafayette Parish School Board (LPSB), purchased this land but later discovered that it had been erroneously assessed for tax purposes as it should have been exempted under state law due to its use for educational purposes. LPSB sought to annul the sale arguing they were not required to pay taxes on their properties used for public schools according to Louisiana's constitution. The court held that even though there may have been an error in assessing taxes against LPSB’s property initially, once the property was sold at a tax sale because of non-payment of those taxes - regardless if they were wrongfully imposed or not - title passed free and clear from any claims by previous owners including LPSB. Therefore, despite acknowledging an initial mistake made by local authorities regarding taxation assessment; since no steps were taken before the sale took place challenging these assessments or paying under protest then seeking refund afterwards – which are remedies provided under Louisiana law – ownership transferred legally through auction without encumbrances.

In the dissenting opinion for Eddy v. Lafayette, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of both constitutional law and precedent. He contended that the city of Lafayette had no right to arbitrarily revoke Eddy's franchise without providing compensation, as it violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. According to Harlan, this amendment not only protected citizens from state infringement on their privileges or immunities but also safeguarded their property rights against unjust deprivation by states without due process of law. Therefore, he believed that any revocation should be considered an act of eminent domain requiring just compensation rather than a simple exercise of police power as claimed by the majority. Furthermore, he disagreed with how they distinguished between perpetual and limited-term franchises in previous cases like Fertilizing Co v Hyde Park; instead asserting all franchises were contracts deserving equal protection under contract clause irrespective of duration or nature.