In the case of Brown v. Webster in 1894, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Brown, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands as an heir of his deceased father who had received them from his own mother's will. However, the defendant, Webster argued that these lands were not part of the estate because they had been sold before her death to pay off debts she owed him. The lower court ruled in favor of Webster based on evidence presented by him which included promissory notes signed by Brown's grandmother acknowledging her debt to him and a deed transferring property ownership from her to him as payment for this debt. However, upon appeal at the Supreme Court level it was found that there were discrepancies between dates on these documents which raised doubts about their authenticity and validity. Furthermore it was discovered that despite claiming full ownership through this deed transfer agreement; Webster continued paying rent for use of these lands after supposed purchase date indicating possible fraud or misrepresentation on his part. The Supreme Court therefore reversed previous judgment ruling instead in favor of Brown stating he did indeed have rightful claim over disputed properties as per terms outlined in his grandmother’s original will.

In the dissenting opinion for Brown v. Webster, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional. He contended that such laws violated both the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying individuals of different races their fundamental right to marry whomever they chose. Furthermore, he asserted that these laws were rooted in prejudice and served no legitimate governmental interest. In his view, any statute based on racial discrimination should be subject to strict scrutiny - meaning it must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve its goal - which he believed this law did not meet. Thus, he concluded that it should have been struck down as unconstitutional.