In the case of Richardson v. Harmon, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and taxation. The Toledo Terminal and Railway Company had been granted certain lands by Congress to aid in constructing a railroad line from Toledo, Ohio to Chicago, Illinois. However, these lands were subsequently taxed by local authorities which led to foreclosure proceedings when taxes weren't paid on time. The company's receiver argued that since the land was given for public purposes (i.e., building railroads), it should be exempt from state or local taxation under federal law. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that while Congress can grant immunity from state taxation for federal instrumentalities or agencies performing governmental functions; private corporations like railway companies do not fall into this category even if they are fulfilling public purposes such as building railroads. Therefore, despite being granted land by Congress for construction of railways - an act serving public interest - the company could not claim exemption from paying local taxes on those properties because it remained essentially a private corporation engaged in commercial activities rather than acting as an arm of government itself.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Richardson v. Harmon, Receiver of the Toledo Terminal and Railway Company argued that there was no legal basis for holding a receiver liable for damages caused by negligence prior to their appointment. The dissenting justices contended that receivers are not successors in interest but rather officers appointed by the court to manage property during litigation; they do not assume liability for past actions or debts unless explicitly directed by the court. They also pointed out that if receivers were held responsible for all liabilities, it would discourage competent individuals from accepting such appointments due to potential financial risks involved. Furthermore, they emphasized that any claims against a company should be made before its dissolution or reorganization under bankruptcy laws so as not to unfairly burden future operations managed by receivers.