In the 1904 case of Carter v. Gear, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Hawaii following its annexation by the U.S. The plaintiff, George R. Carter, claimed that he had purchased property from a Hawaiian citizen before annexation and was therefore entitled to it under U.S law post-annexation. However, the defendant, Jonathan H. Gear argued that since he had acquired his title after annexation through foreclosure proceedings initiated by an American citizen against a native Hawaiian debtor (who sold it to him), his claim should be recognized instead. The court ruled in favor of Gear on grounds that at time of purchase by Carter; Hawaii was still an independent nation whose laws did not recognize such transactions between private individuals without government approval which wasn't obtained then making this sale void ab initio (from beginning). On other hand when Gear bought same land later during foreclosure process after US's takeover; all previous legal impediments were removed thus validating his acquisition as per new jurisdiction's rules.

In the dissenting opinion for Carter v. Gear, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against a land grant in Hawaii was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the original Hawaiian monarchy had intended to create private property rights through these grants and that this intention should be respected. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an 1845 Hawaiian law, arguing instead that it allowed for private ownership of lands granted by the monarchy without requiring further confirmation from another authority or body. Furthermore, they contended that subsequent U.S laws did not invalidate these grants but rather recognized them as valid claims to property ownership under American law after annexation of Hawaii by United States.