The U.S. Supreme Court case Galliher v. Cadwell in 1891 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of certain deeds. The plaintiff, Galliher, claimed that he was the rightful owner of a piece of property based on two deeds: one from an individual named Smith who had purchased it at a tax sale, and another from the heirs of an individual named Hays who originally owned it before it was sold for taxes. The defendant, Cadwell, argued that these deeds were invalid because they did not meet legal requirements such as proper acknowledgment or recording within specific timeframes. The court ruled in favor of Cadwell stating that both deeds presented by Galliher were indeed invalid due to non-compliance with statutory regulations regarding their execution and recordation. Therefore, neither deed could be used to establish title to the disputed property.

In the dissenting opinion for Galliher v. Cadwell, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which allowed a creditor to seize property from an insolvent debtor despite state laws protecting certain assets from seizure - undermined states' rights and individual protections against creditors. The dissent emphasized that federal law should not supersede state insolvency laws designed to protect debtors from losing their homes or other essential property. It further contended that allowing such seizures could lead to abuse by creditors and exacerbate financial hardship for individuals already facing bankruptcy or insolvency. Thus, in this view, the Supreme Court should have overturned the lower court's decision as inconsistent with both federalism principles and fairness considerations towards financially distressed citizens.