In the case of Freeman v. Asmus, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Freeman, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had acquired it through preemption rights under federal law. However, this person did not fulfill all necessary requirements to secure these rights before selling the land to Freeman. Meanwhile, another party named Asmus also laid claim to the same property after purchasing it from someone else who obtained title via Mexican Land Grant confirmed by Congress and patented by President Lincoln. The court held that even though there were irregularities with how both parties came into possession of their respective titles for the same parcel of land; priority should be given to those whose claims are based on patents issued by United States government officials acting within their authority (in this case - Asmus). This decision was grounded in legal principles recognizing patent as highest evidence of right and its issuance extinguishing all previous claims or equities against lands granted thereby.

In the dissenting opinion for Freeman v. Asmus, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and violated principles of contract law. He contended that when a party to a contract has performed their obligations under it, they have a right to expect performance from the other side in return. In this case, he believed that Freeman had fulfilled his part of the agreement by paying premiums on an insurance policy and therefore had a right to expect payment from Asmus upon maturity of said policy. The majority's ruling allowed Asmus to avoid fulfilling his contractual obligation simply because he no longer wished to be bound by it - something which Justice Brewer found unacceptable as it undermined fundamental tenets of fairness and reciprocity inherent in contract law.