In the case of City of Chicago v. Mills in 1906, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between the city and a private citizen over land ownership. The city claimed that it had acquired title to certain lands under Lake Michigan through various legislative acts and grants dating back to 1821, while Mills argued that he owned part of this land due to an inheritance from his father's estate. The court held that although some parts of these laws could be interpreted as granting property rights to the city, they did not clearly or explicitly do so. Therefore, any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of private property rights rather than public ownership. As such, it was determined that Mills retained rightful ownership over his portion of land within Lake Michigan.

The dissenting opinion in the case of City of Chicago v. Mills argued that the city had no right to seize property for public use without just compensation, even if it was under a claim of necessity due to an emergency situation. The justice contended that such actions violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which protects private property rights against government intrusion without fair payment. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'public use', arguing that it should be strictly construed and not expanded to include situations where there is merely a general benefit or advantage to the community. He also expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent whereby municipalities could arbitrarily confiscate private properties under vague notions of public good or necessity without providing adequate remuneration.