In the 1897 case of Karrick v. Hannaman, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Karrick, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its rightful owner and therefore held legal title to it. However, the defendant, Hannaman argued that she was actually the rightful owner because her husband had previously bought it at a tax sale when no taxes were paid on it for two years. The lower court ruled in favor of Hannaman but this decision was appealed by Karrick to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling and sided with Karrick stating that there wasn't sufficient evidence proving that all necessary procedures were followed during said tax sale which would have transferred proper title to Mrs.Hannaman’s husband initially . Therefore they concluded Mr.Karrick did indeed hold valid title as he claimed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Karrick v. Hannaman argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply existing laws related to land ownership and transfer. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Karrick had a valid claim to the disputed property based on his purchase from a third party who had obtained it through foreclosure proceedings, despite any irregularities in those proceedings. They contended that under established legal principles, such as "bona fide purchaser for value without notice," Mr. Karrick should be considered the rightful owner of the property since he bought it in good faith without knowledge of any potential defects in title or prior claims by other parties including Mrs.Hannaman . Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's view about statute limitations asserting instead that Mrs.Hannaman’s claim was time-barred due her failure to take timely action after learning about foreclosure sale.