In the case of Varner v. New Hampshire Savings Bank in 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and mortgage payments. The plaintiff, Varner, had purchased land from one Mr. Smith who previously mortgaged it to the defendant bank but failed to pay off his debt before selling it to Varner. When Smith defaulted on his loan payment, the bank sought foreclosure against both him and Varner as subsequent owner of the property. Varner argued that he was not liable for Smith's debt because he wasn't aware of any existing mortgage at time of purchase; however, this claim was rejected by lower courts based on "constructive notice" principle which holds that public records (like mortgages) are deemed known even if they're actually unknown. The Supreme Court affirmed these rulings stating that although there might be some unfairness towards an innocent purchaser like Varner due to constructive notice doctrine - such potential injustice is outweighed by need for certainty in real estate transactions where buyers must assume responsibility for checking title history before purchasing properties.

The dissenting opinion in the Varner v. New Hampshire Savings Bank case argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the law and application to this specific case. The dissent contended that Mr. Varner should not be held liable for his wife's debt, as he was neither a party to nor aware of her loan agreement with New Hampshire Savings Bank at the time it was made. They believed that under common law principles, a husband is not automatically responsible for his wife's debts unless he has expressly or implicitly agreed to assume such responsibility, which did not happen here according to available evidence. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view on marital property rights and obligations arguing it outdated and unjustly punitive towards husbands.