In the 1906 case of Bacon v. Walker, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Utah. The plaintiff, Bacon, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands under an Act of Congress passed in 1862 which granted rights to build railroads through public lands. However, before he could complete his railroad construction and claim these lands officially, another party named Walker had already obtained patents for them from the United States government under mining laws enacted by Congress after 1862. The court ruled against Bacon stating that while his right was prior in time (since it arose from an earlier act), it was not absolute but contingent upon completion of his railroad within a specified period - something he failed to do. On the other hand, Walker's right although later in time became absolute once they received their patent from the government since there were no conditions attached like those on Bacon's grant. Thus this case established that when two parties have conflicting claims over public land based on different acts of congress; priority is given not just based on who has older claim but also considering whether such claim has been perfected or made absolute as per terms laid down by law.

In the dissenting opinion for Bacon v. Walker, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider and apply relevant state law. The dissent contended that under Alabama law, a mortgagee has no right to possession of mortgaged property until foreclosure occurs or unless there is an agreement granting such rights. Therefore, they believed that the plaintiff in this case had no legal claim to timber removed from his mortgaged land by a third party before he foreclosed on it. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Alabama statutes regarding liens on harvested timber, arguing these laws were intended only as protection against creditors and did not grant ownership rights over cut timber to anyone other than its cutter or purchaser. Thus, according to their view, neither federal nor state law supported awarding damages for lost timber value in this case.