In the 1891 case of Ferry v. King County, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Seattle, Washington. The plaintiff, Thomas T. Minor and his wife had sold their property to Eliza P. Ferry but later claimed that they still owned part of it because the deed was not properly acknowledged before a competent officer as required by law at that time for such transactions to be validly executed and recorded. The court ruled in favor of King County (representing public interest), stating that even if there were irregularities or errors in acknowledging the deed, these did not invalidate its execution nor affect its admissibility as evidence since it was already accepted into public records without objection for several years prior to this lawsuit being filed. This decision established an important legal precedent: once a document has been admitted into public record and remained unchallenged for many years, minor procedural flaws during its creation do not necessarily render it invalid or unusable as evidence in court proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Ferry v. King County, the justice argued that the county had no right to tax a ferryboat as real estate simply because it was used in connection with a wharf owned by the same person. The justice believed this interpretation of law would lead to absurd results, such as taxing ships at sea or railroad cars on tracks as real estate. He also disagreed with majority's view that using something for profit makes it taxable property; he pointed out many things are used for profit but aren't taxed (like horses). Furthermore, he criticized their reliance on state court decisions instead of federal precedent and noted inconsistencies in how they applied these rulings. Lastly, he felt there were procedural issues: specifically, that an appeal should have been allowed due to errors made during trial regarding jury instructions and evidence admission.