In the 1895 case of Gillis v. Stinchfield, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Michigan. The plaintiff, Gillis, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had obtained it through a patent issued by the U.S government under the Swamp Land Act of 1850. However, defendant Stinchfield argued that this patent was invalid because at the time it was issued, there were still Native American tribes living on and using this land which made it ineligible for sale or transfer under federal law. The court sided with Stinchfield's argument and held that since Indian occupancy constituted an exception to public lands available for disposal under federal laws including swamp-land grants; therefore any patents granted during such occupancy are voidable if challenged directly but not void ab initio (from inception). This meant that while technically these patents could be declared null upon direct challenge as in this case; they weren't automatically considered null from their issuance date.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Gillis v. Stinchfield argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important aspects of maritime law, which should have been applied given that the dispute arose from a collision between two vessels on navigable waters. The dissent contended that under maritime law, both parties involved in a collision are typically found partially at fault unless there is clear evidence to suggest otherwise. In this case, they believed such evidence did not exist and thus both parties should share liability for damages resulting from the accident. Furthermore, they disagreed with how negligence was determined by the majority and felt their interpretation of what constituted reasonable care under these circumstances was incorrect. They also took issue with how damages were calculated and awarded in this case.