In the Carmichael v. Eberle case of 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Carmichael, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had received it through allotment as part of his membership in the Choctaw tribe. However, Eberle contested this claim and argued that she was entitled to the property because her husband (a non-Indian) had leased it before statehood and continued to occupy it afterwards until his death. The court held that under federal law at the time when Oklahoma became a state - which provided for continuity of existing leases - Eberle's leasehold interest remained valid despite subsequent changes in ownership due to allotment or sale by tribal members. Therefore, while Carmichael may have acquired some rights over the land through purchase from its original owner after allotment, these did not extinguish or supersede those previously granted to Eberle under her lease agreement.

The dissenting opinion in the Carmichael v. Eberle case argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important aspects of property law. The dissenting justices believed that a person should not lose their right to property simply because they did not physically possess it at all times, as long as they maintained legal ownership and control over it. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "actual possession," arguing that this term should be understood more broadly to include constructive or legal possession, rather than just physical possession. Furthermore, they contended that even if actual possession were required for a valid lien under Alabama law (as claimed by the majority), there was sufficient evidence in this case to show such actual possession by Carmichael before his bankruptcy filing. Therefore, according to them, he had a valid lien on his cotton crop which should have been recognized and protected against Eberle’s claim.