In the 1891 case of Sparhawk v. Yerkes, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and tax obligations. The plaintiff, Sparhawk, had purchased land at a sheriff's sale that was previously owned by the defendant, Yerkes. However, before this purchase occurred, there were unpaid taxes on the property which led to it being sold for tax purposes to another party who then transferred their claim to Yerkes. When Sparhawk attempted to take possession of his newly bought land he discovered that it was already claimed under these circumstances. The court ruled in favor of Sparhawk stating that when he bought the property at auction from an officer legally authorized to sell it due its previous owner’s defaulting on mortgage payments; all prior claims including those related to unpaid taxes were extinguished as per Pennsylvania state law where this incident took place. Therefore any subsequent sales or transfers made after such foreclosure proceedings are void and cannot be enforced against purchasers like him who have acquired good title through judicial sale.

In the dissenting opinion for Sparhawk v. Yerkes, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax sale of property due to unpaid taxes was unjust and violated principles of equity. The dissenting justices believed that the original owner should have been given more notice before his property was sold off by local authorities in order to pay his overdue taxes. They also disagreed with how quickly and easily someone could lose their property under these circumstances, arguing this went against established legal norms regarding ownership rights and due process protections. Furthermore, they felt there were other ways for governments to collect owed taxes without resorting to such drastic measures as selling someone's home or land out from under them without sufficient warning or opportunity for recourse.