In the case of Bassett v. United States (1890), the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land rights in California, which had been granted to settlers under an 1866 law known as "An Act for the relief of Settlers on Lands reserved for Railroad purposes." The plaintiff, Bassett, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands based on this act. However, these lands were also claimed by Southern Pacific Railroad Company due to a grant from Congress in 1871. The court held that while both parties had valid claims at different points in time, priority should be given to those who first obtained their claim legally and without fraud or mistake - which was Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Therefore, even though Bassett's claim came before the railroad company's patent issued by government officials years later; his failure to perfect his title through payment meant he lost out when it came into conflict with another legitimate claimant.

In the dissenting opinion for Bassett v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there were too many uncertainties and potential explanations for the defendant's actions other than guilt of the crime charged. They contended that while circumstantial evidence can be used in court cases, it should not be relied upon when direct evidence is lacking or insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, they felt that there were plausible alternative explanations for why Bassett had acted as he did which could have been explored further at trial but weren't due to an over-reliance on indirect proof by prosecutors and judges alike.