In the case of Lessee of Mordecai Levy, Elizabeth Levy, Chapman Levy and Rosina his wife, Bella Hart, Bella Cohen, Rhina Mordecai, Flora Levy and Jacob Henry v. Peter M'Cartee (1832), the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a deed from an individual who had purchased land in Pennsylvania at a sheriff's sale should be enforced. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to possession of the property because their ancestor had originally owned it before it was sold by the sheriff. The defendant argued that he held title to the property based on his purchase from another party at a later date. After considering both sides’ arguments and examining relevant documents related to ownership history of this particular piece of land in question over many years prior as well as other legal precedents concerning similar cases involving disputed titles for real estate properties in Pennsylvania ,the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of defendants holding that their deed should be enforced since they acquired title through valid means according to law .

In the dissenting opinion of Lessee of Mordecai Levy, et al. v. Peter M'Cartee, Justice Story argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established principles and prior decisions by this court. He contended that when a party has acquired an equitable interest in land through payment or performance of conditions precedent, they are entitled to protection from subsequent purchasers who have not taken reasonable steps to ascertain whether such interests exist before acquiring title. In this case, he believed that the lessees had performed all their obligations under their lease agreement with Mordecai Levy and were therefore entitled to be protected against any claims made by subsequent purchasers like M'Cartee who did not take proper precautions before purchasing title from Levy's heirs without knowledge of the existing leasehold rights held by these parties.