In the case of Deming Investment Company v. United States, 1911, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in New Mexico. The Deming Investment Company claimed that they had acquired valid title to certain lands under an old Spanish grant which was confirmed by Congress and patented by the President. However, these lands were also part of a reservation for Apache Indians established by executive order before the patent was issued but after confirmation by Congress. The U.S government argued that it retained rights to these lands because they were reserved for public purposes (Indian Reservation) prior to issuance of any patents confirming private ownership. The court ruled in favor of the U.S Government stating that while Spanish grants could be recognized as legitimate claims on territory within newly-acquired regions such as New Mexico, this recognition did not supersede or nullify existing reservations or other uses designated by federal authority before those claims were validated through Congressional action and Presidential approval. Therefore, despite having their claim confirmed and patented, Deming's acquisition did not include areas already set aside for public use like Indian Reservations.

In the dissenting opinion for Deming Investment Company v. United States, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a tax on dividends from stocks held by an investment company. He argued that this was essentially double taxation, as the corporations issuing these dividends had already been taxed on their profits. Furthermore, he contended that such a tax was not in line with Congress' intent when it passed the relevant legislation and could have negative implications for business operations and economic growth. The justice also expressed concern about potential inconsistencies in how different types of income were being treated under federal law due to this ruling.