In the 1902 case of Hale v. Allinson, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Arizona Territory. The plaintiff, Hale, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, before this purchase was finalized and recorded by local authorities, another party named Allinson filed for homestead rights on the same property. When both parties sought to assert their respective claims in court, lower courts ruled in favor of Allinson based on his earlier filing date despite not being first to occupy or improve upon the land as required by homesteading laws at that time. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions and sided with Hale instead because they found that although Allinson's claim was technically filed first according to dates alone; he did not meet other requirements necessary for valid homesteading such as actual occupancy or improvements made on said property prior to filing his claim which were fulfilled by Hale instead thus making him rightful owner under preemption laws applicable then.

In the dissenting opinion for Hale v. Allinson, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and violated principles of equity. He contended that a contract made in violation of law should not be enforced by any court, especially when it involves public interests or policy. In this case, he believed that allowing an insurance company to collect premiums on policies issued illegally would unjustly enrich them at the expense of policyholders who were unaware they were entering into an illegal agreement. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Alabama state law regarding foreign corporations doing business within its borders without complying with statutory requirements; instead asserting such companies should be held accountable for their actions rather than being allowed to profit from their disregard for local laws.