In the 1891 case of Chever v. Horner, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Chever, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its rightful owner and was therefore entitled to possession. However, the defendant, Horner argued that he held legal title to the same property due to an earlier transaction involving a third party who did not have proper authority or rights to sell it. The court ruled in favor of Horner on grounds that his claim was based on older documentation which showed him as being granted full rights by Congress for this specific parcel of land while Chever's purchase was made later from someone without legitimate claim or right to transfer ownership.

In the dissenting opinion for Chever v. Horner, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which found in favor of Horner and against Chever on grounds related to property rights - was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the lower courts in interpreting and applying relevant laws, leading them to reach an unjust conclusion. They contended that these mistakes had resulted in a violation of Chever's lawful property rights without due process or just compensation as required by law. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain evidence was handled during trial proceedings and felt this also contributed negatively towards achieving justice in this case.