In the case of Ex Parte In The Matter Of Lathrop L. Sturgess v. Christian Harrold, and George Buckley v. Christian Harrold, two separate cases were heard by the US Supreme Court concerning a dispute over land titles in Illinois between three parties: Lathrop Sturgess, George Buckley and Christian Harrold. Both plaintiffs claimed that they had purchased their respective parcels of land from one Abraham Lincoln who was not authorized to sell them as he did not have title to either parcel himself; instead it belonged to his father-in-law, John Calhoun (who had died). The court found that both plaintiffs should be granted relief on equitable grounds due to their reliance upon Lincoln's representation that he owned the lands in question when they bought them from him - even though this was ultimately untrue - and ordered for a deed conveying title of each parcel back into its rightful owner's name be issued accordingly.

In Ex Parte In the Matter of Lathrop L. Sturgess v. Christian Harrold, the dissenting opinion argued that a court order requiring an individual to pay money for another’s benefit should not be enforced unless it is clear from the record that such payment was due and owing by law or contract. The majority had held that since there was no dispute as to whether or not payment was due, they could enforce the court order without further inquiry into its validity. However, Justice McLean dissented on this point and argued that courts must always examine orders closely before enforcing them in order to protect individuals from having their property taken away unjustly. He reasoned that if a person were required to pay money for another’s benefit without any legal basis then it would amount to taking private property for public use without just compensation which is prohibited by both state and federal constitutions. Therefore, he concluded that courts should only enforce orders when there is no doubt as to their legality rather than simply assuming they are valid based on one party's assertion alone