In the case of Davis v. Patrick, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1891 ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Davis, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands in San Francisco under an old Mexican land grant which had been confirmed by the United States for his predecessor but not yet patented at the time of his death. However, these lands were sold by tax collectors due to unpaid taxes from previous years before they were transferred to him through inheritance lawfully recognized by California state law. The defendant argued that since there was no patent issued during his predecessor's lifetime and because it wasn't recorded as required under California law until after its sale for taxes (which occurred prior), then this property should be considered public domain available for taxation rather than private property exempted from such actions. The court sided with Davis stating that once confirmation proceedings have taken place confirming title rights granted under foreign governments (in this case Mexico) prior their cession to US territory; those rights become vested immediately upon confirmation even without issuance or recording of formal patents thus making them immune against subsequent claims including those arising out of tax sales.

In the dissenting opinion for Davis v. Patrick, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and precedent. He contended that the court had previously held in similar cases involving land grants to railroads, that such grants were made on condition of completion within a specified time period. If this condition was not met, then according to previous rulings, the grant would be forfeited and revert back to public domain status. However, in this case he believed that the majority ignored these precedents by ruling in favor of Davis who acquired his title after expiration of said time limit but before any formal declaration of forfeiture by Congress or any other competent authority. This interpretation according Justice Brewer undermined certainty and predictability which are essential elements for property rights protection under law.