In the case of Van Wagenen v. Sewall in 1895, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over property rights. The plaintiff, Van Wagenen, claimed that he had purchased land from Sewall and later discovered that it was encumbered by a mortgage which hadn't been disclosed at the time of sale. He sued for damages on grounds of fraud and deceit. However, the court ruled against him stating that he failed to exercise due diligence before purchasing as there were public records available indicating this mortgage lien on said property. Therefore, his claim could not be supported since he had means to discover this fact himself prior to purchase but did not do so.

In the dissenting opinion for Van Wagenen v. Sewall, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Sewall was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process and these mistakes had unfairly influenced its outcome. Specifically, they pointed out that certain evidence which could have potentially exonerated Van Wagenen was not allowed to be presented at trial due to procedural issues. They also disagreed with how some laws were interpreted and applied in this case by both the trial judge and their fellow Supreme Court justices. In their view, these misinterpretations had led to an unjust result where Van Wagenen was held liable for damages he should not have been responsible for under proper legal standards.