In the case of District of Columbia v. Eslin in 1901, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership between the federal government and private citizens. The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Eslin, claimed that they had purchased a piece of property from its previous owners who held an original grant from Congress dating back to 1791 when Washington D.C was first established as the nation's capital city. However, it turned out that this particular parcel was part of public lands reserved for use by federal institutions such as schools or hospitals but mistakenly sold due to clerical errors in early surveys and maps. The court decided in favor of the District of Columbia (representing federal interests), stating that even though there were mistakes made during initial land distribution processes, these did not alter or diminish governmental rights over public reserves once identified correctly later on. Therefore, despite having bought their property legally according to available records at their time - which showed no encumbrances - Mr & Mrs Eslin could not assert superior title against sovereign claims based upon subsequent rectification efforts revealing earlier administrative oversights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of District of Columbia v. Eslin argued that the majority's decision to hold the District liable for damages was incorrect. The dissent contended that there was no legal basis for holding a municipal corporation, such as the District of Columbia, responsible for an act committed by one of its officers unless it could be proven that said officer acted under direct orders or authority from his superiors. In this particular case, there was no evidence presented to suggest that any higher authorities within the district had ordered or approved Officer Eslin's actions which resulted in damage to private property. Therefore, according to this viewpoint, it would be inappropriate and unjustified to impose liability on the entire municipality based on these circumstances.