In the case of Bilby et al. v. Stewart et al., 1917, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Arizona between two parties who had both received patents from different federal statutes - one under an act granting lands for railway purposes and another under a homesteading law. The court ruled that when there is conflict between these two types of grants, priority should be given to those made for railway purposes as they are considered public uses which serve greater societal interests than individual property rights granted through homestead laws. Therefore, despite receiving their patent first, the Bilbys' claim was subordinate to that of the Stewarts'. This decision underscored how federal policy favoring transportation infrastructure could override private property claims.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bilby et al. v. Stewart et al., 1917, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply existing laws regarding land ownership and transfer rights. The dissenters believed that the original grantor had not intended or legally transferred all property rights, including mineral rights, to subsequent owners. They contended that under Arizona law at the time of initial sale, these mineral rights would have been retained by the original owner unless explicitly included in any sales agreement - which they were not in this case. As such, they felt that later claims on these resources by new owners were invalid as their purchase did not include them originally.