In the case of Fogg v. Blair in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Fogg, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands in California under Mexican law as he was an heir of Juan Miranda who had received a grant for these lands from Mexico before California became part of the United States. However, Blair argued that since Miranda died intestate (without leaving a will), his property should have been distributed according to Californian law which would exclude Fogg from any claim over it. The court held that upon Miranda's death without leaving a will or testamentary document behind, his estate must be divided according to local succession laws at the time - which were those of Mexico and not California as it wasn't yet part of US territory when Miranda died. Therefore, even though later American legislation might alter this distribution pattern among heirs for future cases; they couldn't apply retrospectively on past events like this one where Mexican rules governed initially.

In the dissenting opinion for Fogg v. Blair, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Mississippi’s constitution and its application to this case. He argued that the state's constitutional provision was not intended to disqualify African Americans from holding office but rather aimed at preventing those who were illiterate or had committed certain crimes from doing so. The justice believed that Fogg met all qualifications required by law and should have been allowed to take his seat in the legislature despite being black. Furthermore, he contended that it was inappropriate for a federal court to interfere in what he saw as a matter of state jurisdiction - namely, determining eligibility requirements for public office within Mississippi.