In the 1898 case of Guthrie National Bank v. Guthrie, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma Territory. The plaintiff, Guthrie National Bank, claimed that it had purchased lots from an individual who had won them in a lottery conducted by the government to distribute territory lands. However, defendant Benjamin F. Guthrie argued that he was entitled to these lots as they were part of his homestead rights under federal law which allowed settlers to claim up to 160 acres of public land for farming and living purposes. The court ruled in favor of Benjamin F. Guthrie stating that although he did not physically occupy all parts of his claim at once due to its large size (which included the disputed lots), this did not invalidate his homestead rights under federal law because physical occupation is not always possible or practical on such large tracts of land. This ruling affirmed that homesteading laws are intended for broad interpretation and application so as not to penalize individuals who cannot immediately occupy their entire claims due simply to their size.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Guthrie National Bank v. Guthrie argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a bank could not charge more than 10% interest on loans, was incorrect. The dissent contended that this interpretation of Oklahoma law was too narrow and failed to consider other relevant statutes allowing banks to charge higher rates under certain circumstances. They believed the majority had erred by focusing solely on one statute while ignoring others, leading them to an overly restrictive view of banking practices permitted under state law. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that charging more than 10% interest constituted usury and felt it should be permissible for banks operating within their legal rights to set loan terms as they saw fit based upon market conditions and risk assessment.