In the case of Crary v. Dye in 1907, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Crary, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands in Washington state based on an inheritance from his father's will. However, these lands were already occupied by settlers under the Homestead Act before they were officially surveyed by government officials. The defendant, Dye argued that since he had settled and made improvements on this land prior to its official surveying and subsequent inclusion in Crary’s inherited property list; therefore it should be considered as his own property according to federal law. The court sided with Dye stating that while normally unsurveyed public lands could not be legally claimed or owned until after their official surveying; however there is an exception for those who have established residence or made significant improvements upon such land prior to its formal surveying under provisions of homesteading laws like Homestead Act which allows citizens to claim up-to 160 acres of unoccupied public land if they improve it through cultivation or building a dwelling.

In the dissenting opinion for Crary v. Dye, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction was incorrect. He contended that federal courts should have jurisdiction over cases involving land grants by Congress, even when those lands are located in territories rather than states. In his view, this is because such cases involve a federal question as they require interpretation of an act of Congress and its application to specific circumstances. Furthermore, he believed that dismissing this case would leave plaintiffs without any legal recourse since territorial courts could not be expected to adequately interpret and apply complex federal laws related to land grants by Congress.