In the case of Bushnell v. Leland in 1896, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Bushnell, alleged that he had invented an improvement to sewing machines and had assigned his invention to another party who later sold it to Leland. However, before selling it off, this third party allegedly made changes without Bushnell's consent which was against their agreement. Therefore, when Leland started manufacturing sewing machines using this altered design under his own patent right claim; Bushnell sued him for infringement of his original patent rights. The court ruled in favor of defendant Leland stating that once an inventor assigns or sells off his/her invention (patent), they lose all control over future alterations or improvements unless specifically stated otherwise in their assignment contract/agreement. In this case since there were no such provisions mentioned by Bushnell while assigning/selling off his invention initially; he could not claim any infringement on part of Leland who bought the improved version from a third-party assignee legally.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bushnell v. Leland argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant state laws regarding property rights. The dissenting justices believed that under Connecticut law, a mortgagee does not have absolute ownership of mortgaged property but only holds a lien on it as security for debt repayment. Therefore, they contended that when Bushnell purchased Leland's interest in the mortgaged properties at auction, he did not acquire full title to them but merely stepped into Leland's shoes as holder of the mortgages. They also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of what constitutes “fraud” under Connecticut law, arguing that there was no evidence showing any fraudulent intent by either party involved in this case. Thus, they would have reversed the lower court’s judgment against Bushnell.