In Whitcomb v. White, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Indiana. The plaintiff, Whitcomb, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under an 1804 treaty between the United States and local Native American tribes which provided for grants of land to "half-breeds" (individuals of mixed European and Native American ancestry). He argued that his ancestor was a half-breed who had received such a grant but never patented it. However, the defendant White held patents from other individuals claiming rights under the same treaty. The court ruled against Whitcomb on several grounds: firstly, they found no evidence supporting his claim about his ancestor's status or receipt of any grant; secondly, even if such evidence existed it would not be sufficient since only those specifically named in the treaty could benefit from its provisions; thirdly and most importantly - by failing to patent their claims within five years as required by law at that time these supposed grantees lost all rights they might have had. This case is significant because it clarified how property rights granted through treaties are interpreted and enforced.

In the dissenting opinion for Whitcomb v. White, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated basic principles of justice. He contended that a bank should not be allowed to profit from its own wrongdoing by charging interest on money it had wrongfully obtained. In his view, allowing such behavior would encourage banks to engage in fraudulent practices without fear of punishment or loss. Furthermore, he believed that the court's ruling undermined public trust in financial institutions and could potentially destabilize the banking system as a whole.