In the 1892 case of Cooke v. Avery, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Cooke, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from one Mr. Avery who later sold it to another party despite having already sold it to him (Cooke). The defendant argued that at the time of sale to Cooke, they were not aware that they owned this particular piece of property and therefore could not have legally transferred its ownership rights. The court ruled in favor of Avery on grounds that ignorance or mistake about owning a specific parcel does not invalidate an otherwise legal transaction if there is no fraud involved and both parties acted in good faith during negotiations and execution of contract terms.

In the dissenting opinion for Cooke v. Avery, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in Illinois waters was an infringement on interstate commerce. He contended that fish are naturally migratory and do not belong to any particular state until they are caught, thus making them subjects of trade among states. Therefore, he believed it was unconstitutional for a state to prohibit non-residents from participating in this form of commerce within its borders. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies with similar laws regarding hunting game where courts had ruled differently. In his view, these contradictions demonstrated arbitrary distinctions between different types of natural resources which were unjustifiable under constitutional law.