In the case of Browne v. Chavez, 1900, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in New Mexico. The plaintiff, Browne, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one party who had received it through inheritance. However, Chavez argued that he was the rightful owner as his family had been living and working on this land for many years prior to its alleged sale to Browne. The court ruled in favor of Chavez based on evidence showing continuous possession and use by him and his ancestors which established their claim under Spanish law applicable at the time they took possession. This ruling affirmed that long-term occupancy could establish legal title even if no formal grant or deed existed.

The dissenting opinion in the Browne v. Chavez case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider and apply existing laws regarding land grants in New Mexico. The dissent contended that under Spanish law, which was applicable at the time of the grant, a valid title could be created without any formal act of possession by grantees or their predecessors. It also pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and previous decisions made by the court on similar matters. Furthermore, it criticized how evidence presented during trial had been interpreted and evaluated by both lower courts and Supreme Court justices themselves. In conclusion, they believed that Mr.Browne should have retained his rights over disputed lands as per original grant conditions.