In the case of France v. Connor in 1895, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mineral rights. The plaintiff, France, claimed that he had purchased land from the defendant's father before his death and was therefore entitled to any minerals found on it. However, Connor argued that his father did not have clear title to sell because there were still outstanding debts owed by his estate at the time of sale. The court sided with Connor stating that under Louisiana law (where this case took place), property could not be sold until all claims against an estate are settled or unless authorized by a judge overseeing probate proceedings which wasn't done in this instance. Therefore, despite having paid for and taken possession of the land after purchasing it from Connor’s deceased father's estate without knowledge about these debts; France did not legally own it nor its mineral rights as they remained part of debtor’s assets used for settling those unpaid obligations.

In the dissenting opinion for France v. Connor, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on foreign-built yachts violated principles of international law and comity among nations. The dissent contended that such a tax discriminated against foreign goods in favor of domestic ones, which is inconsistent with free trade principles and could potentially provoke retaliatory measures from other countries. Furthermore, they believed this case should not be viewed as simply an issue of taxation but rather one concerning property rights; specifically, whether or not U.S citizens have the right to purchase property abroad without being penalized by their own government upon bringing said property home. They maintained that upholding such a discriminatory tax would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar issues.