In the case of Astiazaran v. Santa Rita Land and Mining Company, 1892, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a lower court had jurisdiction over a land dispute between two parties. The plaintiff, Astiazaran, claimed that he owned certain lands in Arizona under a Mexican grant which were later acquired by the United States through treaty provisions. He sought to recover these lands from Santa Rita Land and Mining Company who held possession at that time. However, it was found that Astiazaran's claim did not fall within any of the classes described in section 8 of an act passed by Congress on March 3rd, 1885 concerning private land claims; hence his suit could not be maintained under this law as he alleged. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that unless there is express statutory authority conferring jurisdiction upon federal courts to hear such cases involving property rights derived from foreign governments prior to their acquisition by US territory (which wasn't present here), they lack power to adjudicate them. Therefore, it upheld lower court’s decision dismissing his complaint for want of jurisdiction.

The dissenting opinion in the Astiazaran v. Santa Rita Land and Mining Company case argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to properly consider Spanish law, which was applicable at the time of the original land grant. The dissent contended that under Spanish law, a grantee who received a provisional title had an equitable right to perfect their title by fulfilling certain conditions such as settling on and cultivating the land. They believed this principle should have been applied in this case where Astiazaran’s ancestors were granted provisional titles but did not fulfill all necessary conditions due to circumstances beyond their control (Apache raids). Therefore, they felt that these lands should still be recognized as belonging to them rather than being considered public domain available for purchase by other parties like Santa Rita Land and Mining Company. The dissent also criticized how evidence from Mexican officials regarding customary practices during Spain's rule over Mexico was dismissed by majority justices.