The Supreme Court case Folsom v. Ninety Six in 1895 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the interpretation of an old Spanish grant. The plaintiff, Folsom, claimed that he had purchased lands from the original grantees who received them under a Spanish grant before Florida was ceded to the United States. He argued that his title should be recognized by U.S courts despite not having been confirmed by Congress or any commission established for such purposes. Meanwhile, Ninety-Six Land & Mining Company asserted their right to these lands based on subsequent purchases and patents issued by the United States government after Florida's acquisition. The court ruled in favor of Ninety Six, holding that while Spanish grants were generally respected following territorial acquisitions if they were made before cession and did not interfere with public rights or policy; this respect was contingent upon confirmation through Congress or appropriate commissions - which hadn't occurred here. Therefore, later purchasers relying on U.S patents could claim superior title against unconfirmed Spanish grants.

The dissenting opinion in the Folsom v. Ninety Six case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found that an individual could not claim land under a preemption right if they had previously sold their rights to another party, was incorrect. The dissent believed this interpretation of the law unfairly penalized individuals who were unaware of these legal intricacies and may have unknowingly forfeited their rights. They also felt it contradicted previous rulings where preemptive rights were upheld even after being transferred or sold. Furthermore, they disagreed with how the majority interpreted "settlement," arguing it should include any act demonstrating intent to occupy and improve land rather than just physical presence on said property as determined by the majority opinion.