In the 1890 U.S. Supreme Court case of Cressey v. Meyer, the dispute revolved around a land title in California. The plaintiff, Cressey, claimed that he had purchased the property from a man named Lick who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, defendant Meyer argued that she was entitled to ownership as her husband (from whom she inherited) bought it directly from Mexican grantees before California became part of the United States and thus before any American laws applied to it. The court ruled in favor of Meyer stating that when Mexico ceded California to America following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, existing property rights were respected and protected by both nations' governments. Therefore, since Meyer's claim predates Lick’s acquisition via preemption rights under American law after this treaty came into effect; her claim is superior. This decision reinforced respect for international treaties and established precedent regarding land claims originating prior to territorial changes due to such treaties.

The dissenting opinion in the Cressey v. Meyer case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a mortgage was invalid because it had not been properly recorded, was incorrect. The dissent believed this interpretation of the law unfairly penalized innocent parties who acted in good faith and were unaware of any recording errors. They contended that if someone purchases property with an unrecorded mortgage and is ignorant of its existence, they should not be punished for another party's failure to record it correctly. Instead, they suggested such issues should be resolved between the original parties involved - namely, those responsible for ensuring proper recording procedures are followed.