In the case of Harding v. Woodcock (1890), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Maine. The plaintiff, Harding, claimed that he had rightful ownership to certain lands based on an old British grant from 1765 which was confirmed by Massachusetts in 1784 and later by Maine when it became a state in 1820. However, these claims were disputed by defendant Woodcock who argued that the original grant did not include the specific lands being contested and thus they belonged to him as per his own purchase deeds. The court ruled against Harding stating that despite any potential ambiguities or uncertainties regarding boundaries mentioned in older grants or confirmations thereof, such documents should be interpreted according to their clear intent at time of issuance rather than through subsequent interpretations or assumptions made years later. Therefore, since there was no explicit mention of including said disputed lands within those originally granted back then; they could not be considered part of them now regardless how much time has passed since.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Harding v. Woodcock argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider key aspects of maritime law and international agreements. The dissenting justices believed that the ship at issue, which had been seized by a U.S. revenue cutter for alleged smuggling activities, should have been considered as being on high seas rather than within U.S territorial waters at the time of seizure due to its distance from land (more than a marine league). This would mean that under international law, only warships could legally seize it - not a revenue cutter. They also disagreed with how evidence was handled during trial proceedings and felt there were procedural errors made by lower courts which affected the outcome unfairly against Mr. Harding.