The U.S. Supreme Court case Bird v. Benlisa in 1891 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the interpretation of treaties between Native American tribes and the United States government. The plaintiff, Bird, claimed that he had purchased lands from members of the Miami Tribe in Indiana under an 1840 treaty which allowed individual tribe members to sell their allotted lands after ten years. However, this was disputed by Benlisa who argued that another clause within the same treaty stipulated these sales could only be made with federal approval - something Bird did not have for his purchase. The court ruled in favor of Benlisa stating that while one part of the treaty did allow for sale after ten years, it also clearly stated such sales required federal approval to protect tribal interests against exploitation or fraudulence by non-tribal buyers like Bird. Therefore, without such approval, any purported sale would be invalid regardless if it occurred after ten years as per other clauses within said treaty.

The dissenting opinion in the Bird v. Benlisa case of 1891 argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held Bird liable for damages incurred by Benlisa due to an alleged breach of contract, was erroneous. The dissent contended that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that Bird had indeed breached his contractual obligations towards Benlisa. Furthermore, it disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain provisions within the contract itself and believed these interpretations were used unjustly against Bird. It also questioned whether some aspects considered by the jury should have been admissible as they may not have directly pertained to determining liability in this specific instance. Therefore, according to this view, upholding such a verdict could potentially set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances or allegations.