In the 1903 case of Filhiol v. Torney, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Louisiana. The plaintiff, Filhiol, claimed that he had purchased the land from its original owners who had received it through a Spanish grant before Louisiana was acquired by America as part of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. However, defendant Torney argued that this Spanish grant was invalid because it hadn't been confirmed by Congress after America's acquisition of Louisiana and therefore didn't constitute legal title to the property. The court ruled in favor of Torney stating that under American law at that time, any foreign grants made after October 1st, 1800 were not recognized unless they were ratified by Congress post-acquisition which wasn't done for this particular piece of land.

In the dissenting opinion for Filhiol v. Torney, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the law. He contended that a contract made in one state should be enforceable in another if it is legal under both states' laws, even if they have different rules about how such contracts are formed or interpreted. In this case, he believed that Louisiana's rule requiring written evidence for certain types of contracts should not prevent enforcement of an oral agreement made in Arkansas where no such requirement exists. He also disagreed with the majority's view on what constitutes "fraud" under Louisiana law, arguing that misrepresentation or concealment can constitute fraud even without intent to deceive.