In the Williams v. First National Bank of Pauls Valley case in 1909, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mortgage payments. The plaintiff, Williams, had purchased land from an individual who had previously mortgaged it to the defendant bank but failed to repay his loan. When the bank sought foreclosure on its mortgage due to non-payment by its original borrower, Williams filed suit claiming he was not aware of any existing mortgages at time of purchase and thus should be protected as an innocent purchaser for value without notice. However, after examining evidence that showed public record clearly indicated existence of said mortgage prior to William's purchase transaction; court held that he could not claim ignorance as defense since it is generally expected for purchasers to conduct thorough investigation into property title before buying real estate assets. Therefore ruling favored First National Bank allowing them proceed with foreclosure action against property now owned by Mr.Williams.

In the dissenting opinion for Williams v. First National Bank of Pauls Valley, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed banks to charge higher interest rates than those permitted by state law. He argued that this interpretation was inconsistent with federal banking laws and violated states' rights to regulate their own economic affairs. Harlan contended that Congress never intended for national banks to operate outside of state usury laws when it passed legislation establishing these institutions. Instead, he believed they were meant to function within existing legal frameworks as part of a larger effort towards financial stability and uniformity across the nation. By allowing them to circumvent these rules, Harlan warned that national banks could exploit borrowers and destabilize local economies without any checks on their power or accountability for their actions.