In the case of ERB v. MORASCH, 1899, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding property rights and easements. The plaintiff, Erb, had purchased land that was previously owned by Morasch's wife. Prior to her death and sale of the property to Erb, she had granted an easement for a sewer line across this land to her husband (Morasch). After purchasing the property from Mrs. Morasach’s estate, Mr.Erb sought legal action against Mr.Morasch claiming he did not have any right over his newly acquired land. The court held that although typically an owner cannot grant an easement in their own land while they are still living there because it would be considered as granting themselves permission which is unnecessary; however when one spouse grants another such rights before dying or selling off their share of common properties then those permissions can remain valid even after ownership changes hands. This ruling established important precedents about how courts should interpret agreements between spouses related to shared real estate assets and also clarified rules around what happens with these types of arrangements once one party dies or sells their interest in said asset.

In the dissenting opinion for ERB v. MORASCH, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of New York City's charter was incorrect and overly narrow. He believed that the city had a duty to keep its streets in safe condition for public use, which included ensuring they were free from obstructions like those caused by Morasch’s construction work. In his view, this obligation extended not only to preventing physical harm but also to avoiding any inconvenience or disruption to citizens' normal use of these public spaces. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's decision absolving Morasch from liability on grounds that Erb did not suffer physical injury due directly to an unsafe street condition created by Morasch’s excavation project adjacent to it.