The case of AINSA v. New Mexico and Arizona Railroad Company in 1899 revolved around a land dispute. The plaintiff, Ainsa, claimed ownership over a parcel of land that the defendant railroad company was using for its tracks. The basis of his claim was an old Spanish grant which he argued gave him legal title to the property in question. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Ainsa stating that at the time when United States acquired this territory from Mexico under Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, it did not recognize any private property rights based on such Spanish grants unless they were officially confirmed by U.S authorities as required by Congress's Act passed on July 22nd,1854 providing procedures for confirmation of these claims . Since there was no evidence showing that Ainsa's claim had been confirmed according to this law ,the court held that he could not assert ownership over this land against New Mexico and Arizona Railroad Company.

The dissenting opinion in the AINSA v. New Mexico and Arizona Railroad Company case argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important aspects of property law. The dissenters believed that a railroad company, as a private corporation, should not have been granted eminent domain powers over land owned by an individual or another private entity without proper compensation. They contended that this violated fundamental principles of fairness and justice inherent in American jurisprudence. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal laws governing land grants to railroads, arguing these laws did not give such companies unrestricted rights over privately-owned lands within their designated routes but merely provided them with preferential access for purchasing those lands from their owners at fair market prices.