In the 1894 case of Bannon and Mulkey v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiffs, Bannon and Mulkey, claimed that they had purchased public lands under an Act of Congress from 1866 which allowed for such sales to private individuals. However, their claim was contested by the federal government who argued that these lands were reserved for railroad purposes under another Act passed in 1875. The court ruled against Bannon and Mulkey stating that at the time when they made their purchase (in 1880), those lands were indeed reserved for railroads as per the later act of Congress from 1875. Therefore, despite having bought them legally according to earlier legislation, their claim was not valid due to subsequent changes in law favoring railway development.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bannon and Mulkey v. United States, 1894, was not explicitly recorded or attributed to a specific justice. However, it can be inferred that the dissenters disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold convictions for conspiracy against Bannon and Mulkey under federal law. They may have believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they conspired together to defraud insurance companies by setting fire intentionally on their own properties for financial gain. The dissenters might also have questioned whether this case fell within federal jurisdiction since arson is typically prosecuted at state level unless it involves interstate commerce or federal property.