In the Glenn v. Marbury case of 1891, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and property rights. The plaintiff, Glenn, claimed that he had purchased certain lands in Alabama from one Mr. Ware who was indebted to him at the time of purchase. However, prior to this transaction between Glenn and Ware, defendant Marbury had already obtained a judgment lien against these same properties due to an unpaid debt by Ware. When Marbury attempted to enforce his lien through sale of the disputed lands, Glenn intervened asserting his own claim over them. The court held that under Alabama law at that time (which followed English common law), liens did not attach until they were recorded or levied upon; hence Marbury's unrecorded judgement lien could not defeat Glenn's subsequent bona fide purchase for value without notice of such lien. Therefore it was decided in favor of plaintiff - affirming his right as purchaser over those lands despite any pre-existing but unrecorded claims by other parties like defendant.

In the dissenting opinion for Glenn v. Marbury, the justice argued that a different interpretation of the law was necessary. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that Marbury had no legal right to demand payment from Glenn for services rendered in relation to a land deal. According to this perspective, even though there was no written contract between them, an implied contract existed based on their actions and mutual understanding. Furthermore, it was contended that Maryland state law should be applied differently in this case as it recognized such implied contracts under certain circumstances. Therefore, contrary to what the majority held, Marbury should have been allowed by law to seek compensation from Glenn for his work related to securing government approval of their land transaction.