In the 1891 U.S. Supreme Court case of Wauton v. DeWolf, the court examined a dispute over land ownership in Oregon. The plaintiff, Wauton, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, DeWolf argued that he held rightful claim to the land due to his possession of a tax title which he obtained after paying unpaid taxes on said property when it was sold at public auction for non-payment of taxes by previous owners. The main issue before the court was whether or not a tax title could supersede an existing legal title under Oregon law - specifically if such tax sale is made without any notice to prior lienholders or encumbrancers as required by state statute. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of DeWolf stating that while generally speaking one's purchase at a tax sale does not extinguish prior liens unless there has been proper notice given; however since no evidence showed lack of compliance with statutory requirements regarding notification during this particular transaction process – thus making it valid and enforceable – hence Dewolf’s claim prevailed.

The dissenting opinion in the Wauton v. DeWolf case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of DeWolf, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant errors made during the trial process and these mistakes had an impact on its outcome. Specifically, it pointed out that certain evidence was improperly admitted while other crucial pieces of information were excluded without justification. Furthermore, they believed that instructions given to the jury by the presiding judge were misleading and biased towards one party over another. They also took issue with how damages awarded to DeWolf were calculated; arguing they seemed arbitrary rather than based on actual harm suffered or potential future losses incurred as a result of Wauton’s actions.