In the case of Ely's Administrator v. United States (1897), the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in California. The plaintiff, representing Ely's estate, claimed that they were entitled to certain lands under Mexican law before California was ceded to the U.S., and thus should be recognized as legal owners under American law. However, their claim had been rejected by both a district court and an appeals court due to lack of sufficient evidence proving possession or title during Mexico’s rule over California. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, it upheld these decisions stating that mere assertions without substantial proof cannot establish property rights according to Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provisions which ended Mexican-American War in 1848 and transferred vast territories including California from Mexico to US control.

The dissenting opinion in Ely's Administrator v. United States argued that the government should not be held liable for damages caused by a military officer acting under orders during wartime, even if those actions resulted in civilian property damage. The dissenters believed that such liability would place an undue burden on the government and could potentially interfere with military operations. They also pointed out that there was no precedent for holding the government financially responsible for acts of war, and they warned against setting such a precedent. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of international law as requiring compensation for civilian losses during wartime, arguing instead that this was a matter best left to diplomatic negotiations rather than judicial rulings.