In the case of Union Stock Yards Bank v. Gillespie (1890), the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over property rights and mortgage payments. The plaintiff, Union Stock Yards Bank, had given a loan to Mr. Gillespie which he secured by mortgaging his property in Chicago's stockyards district. When Mr.Gillespie defaulted on his loan repayments, the bank sought to foreclose on this property as per their agreement. However, there were complications due to an existing lease between Mr.Gillespie and another party that predated the mortgage agreement with Union Stock Yards Bank - thus raising questions about whether or not it should be recognized in light of foreclosure proceedings. The court ruled in favor of Union Stock Yard Bank stating that although they must respect any leases made before they took possession of the land through foreclosure; however, these leases could not prevent them from taking ownership altogether because their claim originated from a defaulting debtor who held superior title at time when such agreements were made.

In the dissenting opinion for Union Stock Yards Bank v. Gillespie, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Illinois law regarding mortgage foreclosure and redemption rights. He argued that under Illinois law, a mortgagor has an absolute right to redeem his property within 12 months after a foreclosure sale by paying off the full amount of debt owed plus interest and costs. The majority held that this right could be waived in advance through contract stipulations; however, Justice Lamar contended such waivers were against public policy as they deprived individuals of their statutory redemption rights without providing any equivalent benefit in return. Furthermore, he believed it was not within the court's purview to alter or abolish these established legal principles based on its own views about their wisdom or justice.