In the case of Butler v. Gage (1890), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California, which was originally granted by Mexican authorities before California became part of the United States. The plaintiff, Butler, claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from its original owner and thus held valid title to it under U.S. law recognizing previous Mexican land grants. However, defendant Gage argued that because there were discrepancies between various descriptions and maps of the property's boundaries provided at different times by both Mexican and American officials, no clear title could be established based on these documents alone. The court ruled in favor of Gage stating that although some ambiguity existed regarding exact boundary lines due to imperfect documentation practices during earlier periods; this did not invalidate recognition of prior land grants as per Treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). It further stated that any ambiguities should be resolved using other evidence such as long-standing use or possession consistent with certain boundaries rather than denying validity altogether.

The dissenting opinion in the Butler v. Gage case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider certain key aspects of maritime law. The dissent pointed out that under maritime law, a ship owner is not liable for damages caused by his vessel if he can prove that they occurred without his privity or knowledge. In this case, the defendant had leased his ship to another party who then used it in a way that resulted in damage. The dissent argued that since the defendant did not have control over how his ship was used at the time of incident and therefore could not have known about or prevented it from happening, he should be exempted from liability according to established principles of maritime law.