In the case of Kehrer v. Stewart, the U.S Supreme Court in 1904 dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Kehrer, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who was not its rightful owner and therefore sought to have his purchase validated by the court. The defendant, Stewart, argued that he was indeed the true owner of this property as it had been sold to him by someone else before Kehrer's alleged purchase took place. The lower courts ruled in favor of Stewart but on appeal to the Supreme Court; it reversed their decision stating there were errors made during trial proceedings which may have influenced their judgment unfairly against Kehrer.

In the dissenting opinion for Kehrer v. Stewart, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying Mr. Kehrer his claim on property he had purchased from Mrs. Stewart was incorrect in its interpretation of law and precedent. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Kehrer should have been allowed to keep the property as he had bought it in good faith without knowledge of any existing claims against it by Mrs. Stewart's creditors at the time of purchase, which is protected under bona fide purchaser doctrine (BFP). They also disagreed with how majority applied "notice" concept, arguing that mere existence of unsatisfied judgments does not constitute sufficient notice for BFP protection purposes unless there were specific liens or encumbrances recorded against said property when transaction occurred.