In the case of East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company v. Frazier in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership rights between a railway company and an individual named Frazier. The railway company had been granted certain lands by Congress to aid in its construction but later sold some of these lands to private individuals including Frazier. However, it was discovered that the sale violated conditions set out by Congress when granting these lands to the railroad company as they were not supposed to be sold until completion of sections of track adjacent to them. When this violation came into light, legal action ensued with both parties claiming rightful ownership over said property. The court ultimately decided in favor of Frazier stating that despite violating congressional stipulations for selling off parcels before completing adjacent tracks; once such sales occurred those transactions became valid under law thereby making any subsequent purchasers bona fide owners without notice or knowledge about prior restrictions placed upon their purchased properties.

In the dissenting opinion for East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company v. Frazier, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's ruling that a state could regulate interstate commerce if Congress had not acted on it. He argued that this interpretation was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and undermined federal supremacy in matters of interstate commerce. Furthermore, he contended that allowing states to regulate such matters would lead to inconsistencies between different jurisdictions and potentially disrupt national economic activities. Therefore, he believed that only Congress should have authority over these issues as per the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution.