In the Barnitz v. Beverly case of 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Barnitz, represented by his trustee and executor of his estate after he passed away during litigation, claimed that they had legal title to certain lands under a mortgage foreclosure sale. However, the defendant Beverly argued that he held rightful claim to these lands through preemption rights as an actual settler under federal law. The court decided in favor of Beverly stating that even though there was no formal entry or payment made for such lands at the time when Barnitz's right accrued from foreclosure sale; yet if there was settlement upon and improvement of them with intention to claim them under preemption laws it would be sufficient to hold off subsequent purchasers without notice until rejection of application or abandonment by settler himself.

In the dissenting opinion for Barnitz v. Beverly, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of a bank over an individual who had purchased land from someone who owed money to the bank was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that when Mr. Beverly bought his property, he did so without knowledge of any existing debt or lien on it and therefore should not be held responsible for paying off those debts. They contended that this case involved principles of equity and fairness which were overlooked by the majority opinion, leading them to side with big business (the bank) rather than protecting individual rights (Mr. Beverly). Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled previously by other courts as well as potential negative implications this ruling could have on future real estate transactions.