In Ex Parte In the Matter of Jacob Mussina and Angela Garcia Lafon de Tarneva, et al. Appellants v. Rafael Garcia Cavazos and Wife, et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Mexican grantee had authority to convey land in Texas that he received from Mexico prior to its annexation by the United States. The appellants argued that they were entitled to possession of certain lands based on their claim as purchasers under a valid Mexican title granted before Texas became part of the Union. The respondents countered that since Texas was annexed by treaty with Mexico, all titles issued by Mexico after this date were void ab initio (from inception). After reviewing both sides' arguments, the court held that any grants made during or after annexation are invalid because they violate public policy; however, those grants made prior to annexation remain valid and enforceable even though they may have been issued after statehood occurred.

In Ex Parte In the Matter of Jacob Mussina and Angela Garcia Lafon de Tarneva, et al. Appellants v. Rafael Garcia Cavazos and Wife, et al., a dissenting opinion was issued by Justice Catron who argued that the court should not have dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds as it had done in its majority opinion. He believed that since there were no laws or regulations governing appeals from state courts to federal circuit courts at the time of this case, then any reasonable procedure for such an appeal should be accepted so long as it did not conflict with existing law or public policy. Furthermore, he noted that even if some technicalities had been overlooked in filing this particular appeal, they could easily be remedied without dismissing it outright; thus allowing justice to prevail instead of punishing those involved due to mere technical errors which would ultimately result in injustice being served upon them all.