In the case of Shelton v. Platt, 1890, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Shelton, claimed that he had purchased a property from its rightful owner and was therefore entitled to possession. However, the defendant argued that they were actually the legal owners because they had bought it at an auction following foreclosure on a mortgage held by another party who was not involved in this lawsuit. The court ruled in favor of Platt (the defendant), stating that their purchase at auction superseded any claim made by Shelton as it extinguished all previous rights or claims to ownership. This decision reinforced existing law regarding property sales under foreclosure proceedings: when properties are sold due to unpaid mortgages or other debts owed by prior owners, those sales effectively eliminate any earlier claims unless there is evidence of fraud or unfair practices during sale process.

The dissenting opinion in Shelton v. Platt argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the law. The dissenters believed that a contract, once made, should be enforced according to its terms unless it is illegal or against public policy. They contended that there was no legal basis for refusing to enforce an agreement simply because one party had not yet performed their part of the bargain at the time when performance became due. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on what constituted "consideration" in a contract, arguing that any act which benefits one party or disadvantages another can serve as valid consideration for a promise. In this case, they felt that Mr. Shelton’s promise to pay Mrs.Platt upon her husband’s death provided sufficient consideration for her agreement not to contest his will.