In the Carr v. Quigley case of 1892, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Carr, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its rightful owner and was therefore entitled to possession. However, the defendant, Quigley argued that they were actually the rightful owners due to their family's long-term residence on and use of said property. The main issue at hand was whether or not adverse possession could be used as an argument for ownership rights in this particular jurisdiction. The court ruled in favor of Quigley by upholding the principle of adverse possession - which states that if someone occupies a piece of land openly and continuously for a certain period (in this case 15 years), they can claim legal title over it even without formal deeds or documents proving purchase or inheritance. This ruling affirmed that despite any potential errors made during past transactions related to such properties; longstanding occupancy coupled with improvements made on these lands would grant occupants full rights under law.

In the dissenting opinion for Carr v. Quigley, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the full implications of its ruling on property rights and contracts. He contended that if a person purchases land with an easement attached, they should not be able to unilaterally extinguish this right without compensating those who are affected by such action. Furthermore, he believed that allowing one party to arbitrarily terminate an agreement would undermine confidence in contractual agreements and could lead to widespread uncertainty in real estate transactions. In his view, upholding these principles was essential for maintaining stability and fairness within society.