In the case of Bardon v. Land and River Improvement Company in 1894, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership rights. The plaintiff, Bardon, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from the state of Wisconsin under an act which granted swamp and overflowed lands to states for reclamation purposes. However, these same lands were also sold by the United States government to another party - Land and River Improvement Company - under railroad grants made by Congress. The court held that when there is a conflict between two parties who have received patents from different sovereigns (in this case, State vs Federal), priority should be given to whichever patent was issued first regardless of any subsequent transfers or sales. In this instance, since Bardon's purchase came after the federal grant had been made to Land & River Improvement Co., his claim was deemed inferior despite being backed by state law.

In the dissenting opinion for Bardon v. Land and River Improvement Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the plaintiff contradicted established legal principles regarding property rights. The dissenting justices contended that when an individual purchases land from another party, they acquire all associated rights unless explicitly stated otherwise in their contract or deed. In this case, they believed that when Bardon purchased his land from the government, he also acquired any existing water rights because these were not expressly excluded from his purchase agreement. Therefore, according to this view, Bardon should have been allowed to construct dams on his property without interference from other parties who claimed ownership over adjacent bodies of water based on prior usage or possession claims.