In the case of Eliason et al. v. Wilborn et al., 1929, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Virginia. The plaintiffs, Eliason and others, claimed that they were rightful owners of certain lands under a patent granted by the Commonwealth of Virginia while defendants asserted their claim based on adverse possession for more than twenty years prior to suit commencement. The court held that when there is an actual continued occupation of premises under a claim of title exclusive to any other right but consistent with it, this constitutes adverse possession which can be used as defense against recovery actions brought by original owner after statutory period has passed; thus ruling in favor of defendants (Wilborn and others). This decision emphasized importance given to factual possession over formal title deeds in determining property rights disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for Eliason et al. v. Wilborn et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Virginia statute prohibiting out-of-state corporations from doing business in Virginia unless they obtained a license and paid certain fees was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court. He believed that this ruling violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it discriminated against foreign corporations without any rational basis or substantial state interest justifying such discrimination. Furthermore, he contended that there was no evidence showing these companies were causing harm to local businesses or consumers which would warrant such restrictive measures by the state government. Therefore, according to him, this law should have been struck down as unconstitutional under existing precedents set by earlier Supreme Court decisions on similar matters.