In the 1894 U.S. Supreme Court case Eby v. King, the court examined a dispute over land ownership in Oregon. The plaintiff, Eby, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had received it through the Donation Land Claim Act of 1850 - legislation which granted free land to settlers in Oregon Territory. However, this claim was contested by King on grounds that his wife's father (Eby's supposed grantor) never legally owned said property as he did not fulfill residency requirements stipulated under the act and hence could not have transferred any rights to Eby. The Supreme Court ruled against Eby stating that although there were inconsistencies regarding compliance with residency requirements within different sections of the Donation Land Claim Act itself; when considering overall intent behind such laws i.e., promoting settlement and cultivation rather than mere speculation or monopoly; it is clear that continuous residence and cultivation for four years was indeed necessary for valid title transfer. Therefore since evidence showed non-compliance with these conditions by original claimant (Eby’s grantor), no legal title passed onto him rendering his subsequent sale to Eby void.

In the dissenting opinion for Eby v. King, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting wild game violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this clause guaranteed citizens of each state all privileges and immunities granted to citizens in other states, including hunting rights. They contended that while states have authority over their own natural resources, they cannot discriminate against out-of-state residents by denying them access to these resources under equal terms as in-state residents. Therefore, they felt that any law restricting such access based on residency status should be deemed unconstitutional.