In the case of Willis v. Eastern Trust and Banking Company, 1896, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in Maine. The plaintiff, Willis, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who had acquired it through adverse possession (a method of gaining legal title to property by occupying it for a certain period). However, the defendant bank argued that they held rightful claim to this property due to a mortgage lien on it from its original owner. The court ruled in favor of the bank stating that while adverse possession can be used as grounds for obtaining legal title to property under Maine law; however, such claims cannot override existing liens or mortgages on said properties unless those rights have been explicitly relinquished by their holders. Therefore since there was no evidence suggesting that Eastern Trust and Banking Company ever waived its mortgage lien rights over this piece of land; hence they were deemed as legitimate owners despite any subsequent transactions involving this property.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Willis v. Eastern Trust and Banking Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which allowed for the seizure of property owned by a debtor who had fled his state of residence, was not consistent with principles established by previous Supreme Court rulings. The dissent contended that such seizures violated due process rights because they were carried out without providing adequate notice or opportunity for hearing before an impartial tribunal. Furthermore, it was argued that these actions undermined public confidence in legal institutions as they appeared arbitrary and unfair. The dissent also expressed concern about potential abuses associated with this practice, including possible collusion between creditors and local officials to unfairly target certain individuals or groups.