In the case of Brown v. Baxter, 1892, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Brown, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands in Mississippi because his father had purchased them before his death. However, these lands were sold by an administrator after his father's death without any notice given to him or other heirs as required by law at that time. The defendant Baxter argued that he bought the property from someone who had acquired it legally from this sale and therefore owned it rightfully. The court ruled in favor of Brown stating that since there was no proper notice given for the sale of estate properties as per Mississippi law then prevailing; hence such sales were voidable at suit of any heir so prejudiced thereby until confirmed by decree upon due proceedings instituted for confirmation thereof where all parties interested are duly cited to appear and show cause against such confirmation if they have any objections thereto. This ruling reinforced adherence to legal procedures during administration processes especially when dealing with estates which involve multiple beneficiaries or heirs.

In the dissenting opinion for Brown v. Baxter, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting or fishing in Maine was unconstitutional. He contended that this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens of each state all privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens in other states. According to him, these rights include engaging in common occupations such as hunting and fishing. Furthermore, he asserted that while states have authority over their natural resources including wildlife within their borders, they cannot discriminate against non-residents regarding access to those resources without violating constitutional principles of equality among U.S citizens regardless of their residency status.