The Butler v. National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers case in 1891 revolved around a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Butler, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owner before it was seized by the government during the Civil War due to non-payment of taxes. Afterward, the property was sold to another party who later transferred it to The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers. However, Butler argued that his purchase should be recognized as valid since he bought it before any tax lien existed and thus sued for possession of said property. The Supreme Court ruled against Butler stating that when a person purchases real estate with knowledge of existing claims or liens on such properties (in this case unpaid taxes), they are bound by those obligations regardless if they were aware at time of purchase or not. Therefore, even though Butler may have initially acquired rights to the land prior to seizure by government authorities due to unpaid taxes; these rights became null once said lands were legally confiscated and subsequently sold off.

In the dissenting opinion for Butler v. National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a federal statute regarding pensions. He argued that Congress intended to protect pension payments from being seized by creditors and did not intend to allow organizations like the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers to take control of these funds without explicit consent from the pensioner. In his view, this protection was necessary because many veterans were vulnerable and could be easily manipulated or coerced into signing over their pensions. Furthermore, he believed that if Congress had wanted to make an exception allowing such institutions to seize pensions, it would have done so explicitly in its legislation rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation.