The Ayers v. Watson case in 1890 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of certain legal documents. The plaintiff, Ayers, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had acquired it through inheritance. However, the defendant, Watson, argued that she was the rightful owner as she held a deed to the property signed by its original owners before their death. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Watson on grounds that her claim was supported by stronger evidence - namely, the deed which predated any other claims to ownership made by subsequent inheritors or buyers like Ayers. This ruling underscored two key principles: first is respect for historical records and contracts; second is upholding due process rights where all parties are given fair opportunity to present their cases with supporting evidence.

In the dissenting opinion for Ayers v. Watson, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's ruling that a state could not be sued without its consent under the Eleventh Amendment. He argued that this interpretation was too narrow and failed to consider other constitutional provisions which granted Congress power over states in certain circumstances. Specifically, he pointed out Article I Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits states from impairing contracts and Article IV Section 1 requiring each state to give full faith and credit to public acts of every other state. In his view, these clauses implied a federal right of action against states who violated them even without their consent. Furthermore, he contended that sovereign immunity should not shield states from suits by citizens seeking redress for violations of their constitutional rights because it would undermine equal protection under law as guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment.