In the case of White v. Berry in 1897, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership rights. The plaintiff, White, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who was not legally entitled to sell it because they were not its rightful owner. On appeal to the Supreme Court after losing his initial suit, White argued that he should be allowed to keep the property since he bought it in good faith and without knowledge of any competing claims on it. However, the court ruled against him stating that even though a purchaser may have acted in good faith when buying disputed property; if they acquired it from someone who did not have legal title or right to sell such property then their claim is invalid regardless of their ignorance about this fact at time of purchase.

In the dissenting opinion for White v. Berry, the justice argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of Alabama's constitution and laws regarding municipal bonds. The dissent emphasized that under Alabama law, a city could not issue bonds unless it was authorized to do so by an act of legislature or by a vote from two-thirds of its qualified voters. In this case, neither condition was met when Montgomery issued bonds to fund railroad construction. Therefore, according to the dissenter, these bonds were invalid and should not be recognized as legal obligations on part of either Montgomery or State of Alabama. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s view that bondholders could assume good faith on part of city officials who issued them; instead he believed bondholders needed to verify legality themselves before purchasing such securities.