In the case of Dwight v. Merritt, 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in New York City. The plaintiff, John Dwight, claimed that he had rightful ownership to certain lands under water in East River due to colonial grants given to his ancestors by King James II of England and Queen Anne. However, these claims were disputed by the defendant William E. Merritt who argued that such rights had been extinguished when New York became a state and later through various legislative acts which transferred all lands under navigable waters into public trust for use by citizens of New York State. The court ruled against Dwight stating that upon becoming a state after American Revolution, sovereignty passed from British Crown to people of each respective state including all prerogatives previously held by king or queen such as ownership over submerged lands beneath navigable waters within their borders unless expressly reserved otherwise during transition process. Furthermore it stated any subsequent legislation enacted at both federal and state level only served further confirm this transferal rather than revoke it as suggested by plaintiff's argument. Therefore according to court's decision not only did Mr.Dwight lack legal basis for his claim but also even if he could prove validity of original grants they would have no bearing on current situation since those rights ceased exist long ago.

In the dissenting opinion for Dwight v. Merritt, 1890, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against a bank president who had been sued by shareholders after his bank failed was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the defendant should not be held personally liable for losses incurred due to economic circumstances beyond his control. They pointed out that he had acted in good faith and without negligence or fraud in managing the bank's affairs and therefore should not be penalized simply because of unfortunate business outcomes. Furthermore, they contended that such rulings could deter competent individuals from accepting positions of responsibility in financial institutions for fear of personal liability if things go wrong despite their best efforts.