In the 1891 case Fowler v. Equitable Trust Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and mortgage payments. The plaintiff, Mr. Fowler, had purchased land from a third party who had previously mortgaged it to Equitable Trust Company but failed to make repayments leading to foreclosure proceedings by the company. However, when purchasing this land, Mr.Fowler was unaware of these circumstances due to an error in recording the mortgage at county offices which led him into believing that there were no outstanding claims against it. When he discovered about the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Equitable Trust Company after his purchase of said property; he sued them arguing that their claim was invalid as they did not properly record their mortgage thus failing in providing public notice about any existing liens or encumbrances on this property. The court however disagreed with Mr.Fowler's argument stating that even though there might have been errors in recording process; those mistakes didn't invalidate Equitable’s claim because under Maryland law (where this case took place), mortgages are valid between parties involved and subsequent purchasers without notice only if recorded within six months from date of execution - which was done here despite some clerical errors.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fowler v. Equitable Trust Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant law. The dissent believed that the plaintiff, who had purchased bonds from a railroad company which later defaulted on its payments, should have been able to recover his investment from the defendant trust company which had endorsed and sold him those bonds. They contended that by endorsing these bonds, the trust company assumed responsibility for their value and thus bore liability when they became worthless due to default by issuer (railroad). This interpretation is based on principles of contract law where an endorser guarantees payment if primary obligor fails to pay as well as fiduciary duty owed by trustee towards beneficiary. Therefore, according to this view, ruling against plaintiff contradicts established legal norms regarding endorsement and trusteeship.