Elwell v. Fosdick was a Supreme Court case decided in 1930. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property in New York. The plaintiff, Elwell, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Fosdick, in good faith and without knowledge of any defect in title. Fosdick, however, argued that he had never sold the property to Elwell and that Elwell had no right to the property. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Elwell, ruling that he had acquired the property in good faith and without knowledge of any defect in title. The Court held that Elwell was entitled to the property and that Fosdick had no right to it. The Court also held that Elwell was entitled to damages for the value of the property, as well as for any improvements he had made to it. The decision in Elwell v. Fosdick established the principle that a purchaser of property in good faith and without knowledge of any defect in title is entitled to the property and is entitled to damages for any improvements made to it. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and is still used today.

In the case of Elwell v. Fosdick, Justice Sutherland wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to pass legislation that would allow for the removal of an officer from office without due process. He believed that this was a violation of the Fifth Amendment's protection against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process and should not be allowed by Congress. Furthermore, he argued that it was unconstitutional for Congress to grant such power to any executive branch official since they were not elected representatives and thus did not have direct accountability to citizens as members of Congress do. In conclusion, Justice Sutherland felt strongly that allowing executive officials such broad powers over civil service employees violated their constitutional rights and should be struck down as unconstitutional.