In the case of Crumpton v. United States, 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Alabama. The plaintiff, Crumpton, claimed that he had purchased and owned certain lands under an Act of Congress passed in March 2nd, 1821 which allowed for sale of Creek Indian lands to settlers. However, these claims were contested by other parties who argued they held older Spanish grants to the same land predating American jurisdiction over Florida (which included parts of present-day Alabama). The court found that while there was indeed a conflict between Spanish grants and subsequent US legislation regarding this territory's ownership rights after it came under American control following Adams-Onís Treaty with Spain in 1819; such conflicts should be resolved through diplomatic channels rather than domestic courts as per principles established earlier in Foster & Elam vs Neilson ruling (1829). Therefore it upheld lower court's decision against Crumpton stating his purchase from government did not extinguish prior valid foreign titles unless explicitly done so by treaty or legislative act.

The dissenting opinion in the Crumpton v. United States case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on distilled spirits was incorrect because it violated constitutional principles of taxation. The dissenters believed that this tax was not uniform throughout the United States, as required by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. They pointed out that different regions had varying levels of access to raw materials and markets for distilled spirits, which meant they were affected differently by the tax. Therefore, according to them, this lack of uniformity made it unconstitutional under federal law.