In the United States v. Van Iderstine case of 1898, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning bankruptcy and property rights. The defendant, Van Iderstine, had purchased property from a bankrupt estate without knowing that it was part of an ongoing bankruptcy proceeding. When this fact came to light, he was ordered by lower courts to return the property or pay its value to the trustee overseeing the bankruptcy process. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that since Van Iderstine bought in good faith without knowledge of any irregularities and there were no fraudulent intentions involved in his purchase; therefore he should not be penalized for others' mistakes or omissions regarding proper legal notifications about said proceedings. This ruling established an important precedent protecting innocent third parties who unknowingly engage with assets tied up in legal disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Van Iderstine, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a seizure of property under an internal revenue law was incorrect. He believed that this interpretation of the law allowed for excessive and unjust punishment, as it permitted government officials to seize any amount of property without regard to its value or relation to the crime committed. This could result in penalties far exceeding those prescribed by Congress for such offenses. Harlan also expressed concern about potential abuses of power by government officials who might use this broad authority unfairly or arbitrarily. He contended that such seizures should be limited only to cases where there is clear evidence linking specific properties with illegal activities related directly to tax evasion.