In the case of Chrystal Springs Land and Water Company v. Los Angeles, 1899, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of Los Angeles. The dispute arose when Chrystal Springs Land and Water Company claimed that they had exclusive rights to certain waters which were also being used by the city for public purposes. The company argued that their rights stemmed from a Mexican land grant made before California became part of United States territory. However, upon examination it was found that this grant did not include water rights but only referred to land ownership. The court held that under Spanish-Mexican law (which governed at the time), such grants did not automatically confer water rights unless specifically mentioned in them; hence no such right existed for Chrystal Springs Land and Water Co., even if they owned lands surrounding or adjacent to these waters. Furthermore, it was established through evidence presented during trial proceedings that these waters had been openly used by residents prior to any claim made by plaintiff company - thus establishing a prescriptive right over these resources on behalf of City's inhabitants. This ruling reinforced legal principles regarding property & resource use-rights while providing clarity about interpretation & application of foreign laws within US jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chrystal Springs Land and Water Company v. Los Angeles, it was argued that the city of Los Angeles did not have a right to divert water from its natural course without providing compensation to those who owned land along that course. The justice believed this constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He further contended that while public use could justify such action, no evidence had been presented proving necessity or benefit to public welfare in this particular instance. Therefore, he disagreed with majority's ruling which upheld Los Angeles' actions as lawful under California law and instead advocated for protection of individual property rights against government overreach.