In the case of New England Mortgage Security Company v. Gay, 1891, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and mortgage payments. The plaintiff, New England Mortgage Security Company, claimed that they held a valid mortgage on property owned by defendant William H. Gay and sought to foreclose due to nonpayment. However, Gay argued that he had already paid off his debt in full through an agent of the company who failed to properly record or acknowledge these payments. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Gay based on evidence presented which showed that he indeed made regular payments towards his mortgage as agreed upon in their contract but were not recorded correctly by the company's agent causing confusion about outstanding debts owed by him. This ruling established important legal precedent regarding agency law - specifically it highlighted how principals (in this case, New England Mortgage) can be bound by actions taken by their agents even if those actions are erroneous or negligent; thus emphasizing importance for companies to ensure proper oversight and management of their representatives' activities.

In the dissenting opinion for New England Mortgage Security Company v. Gay, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law limiting interest rates was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Supreme Court. He contended that such laws were in violation of contract rights protected by the Constitution and could potentially lead to economic instability if states were allowed to arbitrarily change terms of contracts between private parties. Furthermore, he believed this ruling undermined principles of federalism as it permitted individual states too much power over interstate commerce and finance which should be regulated at a national level for consistency and fairness across all states.