Nathaniel Cox, Nathaniel and James Dick were plaintiffs in error in a case against the United States. The dispute arose from an act of Congress that authorized the President to grant pre-emption rights to settlers on public lands. The three men had settled on land before it was surveyed by the government and claimed they should be granted pre-emption rights under this act. However, when their claim was denied by the Commissioner of Public Lands, they filed suit against the United States for damages due to lost profits from not being able to purchase or sell their land. The Supreme Court found that while Congress did have authority over public lands, it could not pass laws granting individuals exclusive privileges such as those sought by Cox et al., which would amount to taking private property without just compensation - a violation of constitutional law. Therefore, since no legal right existed for them at common law or under any statute passed prior to their settlement on said lands, there was no basis upon which they could recover damages from the US Government for losses incurred due to lack of pre-emption rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Nathaniel Cox, Nathaniel and James Dick v. The United States argued that the court should have found for the plaintiffs on their claim against a federal tax collector who had wrongfully seized their property to cover unpaid taxes. The dissenters argued that since Congress had not authorized such seizures, they were unconstitutional and therefore invalid. Furthermore, they noted that even if Congress did authorize them, it would be an improper exercise of power as it was beyond what is necessary or proper for carrying out its constitutional duties. They also pointed out that there was no evidence presented by either side to show whether or not these seizures were authorized by law at the time when they occurred; thus making any decision based on this lack of evidence arbitrary and unjustified. Finally, they concluded with a statement affirming their belief in upholding individual rights over those of government entities whenever possible so as to protect citizens from oppressive actions taken without due process or legal authority.