The Cordova v. Grant, Executor of Cotton case in 1918 revolved around a dispute over the ownership and sale of land located in New Mexico. The plaintiff, Cordova, claimed that he had purchased the property from an individual named Chavez who had obtained it through inheritance from his father. However, the defendant argued that this was not possible as Chavez's father did not own any such property at the time of his death. Instead, they contended that it belonged to another man named Cotton whose estate they were managing. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant after examining evidence including old Spanish documents related to land grants made during Spain’s rule over New Mexico before its acquisition by United States. They found inconsistencies with Cordova's claim and concluded that there was no proof supporting his assertion about Chavez's inherited ownership rights on said property. Therefore, based on their findings and interpretation of law pertaining to real estate transactions under Spanish civil code (which governed these lands prior to U.S takeover), they upheld lower court’s decision dismissing Cordova’s suit for lack of substantial evidence proving rightful ownership or valid purchase transaction involving disputed land.

The dissenting opinion in the Cordova v. Grant case argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of legal precedent and an incorrect application of property law principles. The dissent believed that Mrs. Cotton, as a widow, had a legitimate claim to her late husband's estate under community property laws, which should have been recognized despite any ambiguities in her husband's will or other legal documents related to his estate. They also disagreed with the majority’s view about how certain debts and obligations should be handled within this context. Furthermore, they contended that there were significant procedural errors made during trial court proceedings which unfairly disadvantaged Mrs. Cotton and violated due process rights.