In the 1892 case of Hardee v. Wilson, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant Wilson. The plaintiff, Hardee, had purchased land from a man named Smith who was indebted to Wilson at the time of sale. When Smith failed to pay his debt, Wilson seized and sold Smith's property - including the land previously sold to Hardee - under an execution sale (a legal seizure and public auction). Hardee sued on grounds that he was not made aware of this debt when purchasing the property and therefore it should not have been included in the execution sale. The court held that since there were no fraudulent intentions by either party involved in selling or buying said property, nor any statutory provisions protecting bona fide purchasers without notice against prior equities between vendor and vendee (buyer), then such purchaser takes subject to those equities. Therefore, even though unaware at purchase time about existing debts tied with his new acquisition; as per law during those times: "let buyer beware", Mr.Hardee had no right over lands which were legally claimed by Mr.Wilson due to unpaid debts owed by previous owner.

In the dissenting opinion for Hardee v. Wilson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring racial segregation in public accommodations violated both the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent emphasized that such laws perpetuated inequality by creating separate facilities based on race, which inherently implied inferiority of one race over another. Furthermore, they contended that these laws deprived individuals of their liberty without due process by restricting their freedom to associate with others solely based on skin color. They also pointed out inconsistencies in applying this principle only to certain types of public accommodations but not others (e.g., streetcars but not trains). Ultimately, they believed this ruling upheld a system contrary to American principles of equality and justice.