In the case of Drake v. Kochersperger, 1897, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Chicago. The plaintiff, Drake, claimed that he had purchased lots from the state of Illinois and was therefore entitled to them. However, these lots were part of a larger tract which had been sold by the state to another party who subsequently transferred it to Kochersperger. The lower court ruled in favor of Kochersperger on grounds that his title was superior due to its earlier date and because it included all lands within certain boundaries which encompassed those bought by Drake. Drake appealed this decision arguing that his purchase should have been recognized as valid since he bought directly from the state after it reacquired possession through foreclosure proceedings against previous owners for non-payment of taxes. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling stating that although Illinois law did allow for such purchases under specific conditions (i.e., when property is not redeemed within two years), there was no evidence presented showing these conditions were met or even applicable in this instance.

In the dissenting opinion for Drake v. Kochersperger, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the defendant was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court which should have led to a reversal of its judgment. They contended that these errors included allowing certain evidence to be admitted and giving improper instructions to the jury regarding how they should consider this evidence during their deliberations. Furthermore, they disagreed with how some laws had been interpreted and applied in this case, arguing instead for alternative interpretations which would have favored the plaintiff's position. Therefore, while acknowledging that reasonable minds could differ on these points, they firmly held their belief that justice had not been served by upholding the lower court’s verdict.