In the case of Bayne v. Wiggins in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and property rights. The plaintiff, Bayne, claimed that he had purchased a piece of land from Wiggins under an agreement that allowed him to pay for it gradually over time. However, before he could finish making payments, Wiggins sold the same piece of land to another party who was unaware of Bayne's prior claim on it. When this third party tried to take possession of the property, Bayne sued both them and Wiggins for breach of contract and trespassing respectively. The court ruled in favor of Bayne based on his equitable title - which is essentially an interest or right in a particular property even if legal title has not yet been transferred - stemming from his initial purchase agreement with Wiggins. This decision established important precedents regarding equitable titles and their protection under law against subsequent purchasers without notice.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bayne v. Wiggins argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a contract for sale of land was void due to fraud, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove fraudulent intent on part of the seller. It also pointed out inconsistencies in testimony and lack of corroboration as reasons why fraud could not be conclusively established. Furthermore, it disagreed with the majority's interpretation and application of legal principles related to contracts and property law, arguing instead for an approach more consistent with precedent cases where similar issues were involved.