In the 1902 case of Home for Incurables v. City of New York, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. The dispute arose when a non-profit organization, Home for Incurables, claimed that it was exempt from taxation due to its charitable status. However, New York City argued that since part of their property was rented out and used for profit-making activities unrelated to their charity work, they should be taxed accordingly. The court agreed with this argument stating that while charities are generally tax-exempted under law; if any portion is used for profit-making purposes then it loses its exemption status and becomes subject to taxation just like any other commercial entity.

In the dissenting opinion for Home for Incurables v. City of New York, 1902, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law allowing the city to take private property without compensation was unconstitutional. He contended that this violated both state and federal constitutions' protection against deprivation of property without due process of law. The justice emphasized that while public use could justify taking private property with just compensation, it did not permit outright seizure without any recompense at all. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "public use," arguing instead that it should be understood as something directly used by or beneficial to the general public rather than merely serving governmental purposes or interests.