Harkness and Wife v. Underhill was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1861. The dispute arose when William Harkness, an Ohio resident, purchased land from John Underhill in 1853 without being aware of a prior mortgage on the property held by James W. Smith and his wife Mary Ann Smith. When Harkness failed to pay off the mortgage debt owed to the Smiths, they sued him for foreclosure of their lien against his property as well as damages for breach of contract due to nonpayment. In response, Harkness argued that he had not been informed about the existence of any prior mortgages at all during negotiations with Underhill and thus should not be liable for payment since it was impossible for him to have known about them beforehand or assumed responsibility for them upon purchase. After hearing both sides’ arguments, however, Chief Justice Taney ruled that although there may have been some negligence on behalf of Underhill in failing to inform Harkness about existing liens on his property before sale occurred; ultimately it was up to buyers like himself who were purchasing real estate “to use ordinary care” when doing so and make sure they are fully aware of any potential liabilities associated with such purchases before signing contracts or making payments towards them – regardless if sellers fail disclose this information upfront or not

In Harkness & Wife v. Underhill, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed of land in New York could be voided due to fraud and misrepresentation by one of the parties involved. The majority opinion held that the deed should not be voided because it had been accepted without any objection from either party for more than twenty years. Justice Grier dissented, arguing that even if there had been no objections raised during this time period, it did not mean that fraud or misrepresentation were absent at the time of execution; rather, he argued that such matters must always be considered when determining whether a contract is valid or voidable. He further noted that while long-term acceptance may indicate an agreement between both parties as to its validity, it does not necessarily prove so conclusively as to preclude consideration of other factors which might render it invalid.