In the 1891 case of Gage v. Bani, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California that was originally granted by Mexico before it became part of the United States. The plaintiff, Henry Miller and Charles Lux (represented by their agent John Gage), claimed they had purchased Rancho El Piojo from its original grantee under Mexican rule, while defendant Joseph Bani contended he had bought it at a later date from another party who also claimed to have acquired it from the original owner. The court ruled in favor of Miller and Lux on grounds that their purchase was made first and thus held priority over subsequent transactions involving the same property. It found no evidence supporting claims that there were any conditions or reservations attached to their acquisition which would invalidate or limit their title as absolute owners. Furthermore, even if such conditions existed but were not fulfilled, this wouldn't affect third parties like Bani who weren't privy to them when making his own purchase. Therefore, since Miller and Lux's claim preceded his both chronologically and legally without any valid objections against it being raised during trial proceedings; they were declared rightful owners of Rancho El Piojo.

The dissenting opinion in the Gage v. Bani case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the full implications of its ruling on property rights and contractual obligations. The dissent contended that by allowing a third party, who had no direct involvement or stake in an original contract, to interfere and ultimately benefit from said contract without any repercussions was fundamentally unjust. It further suggested this could set a dangerous precedent where contracts would lose their binding force if they can be so easily disrupted by outside parties. This view held that such interference should not only be discouraged but also penalized under law to protect both fairness and economic stability within society at large.