In the 1906 case of Harrison v. Magoon, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Hawaii following its annexation by the U.S. The plaintiff, Benjamin F. Harrison, claimed that he had purchased property from Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii before it became a U.S territory and thus was rightful owner of said property. However, Frank P. Magoon argued that as executor to Queen Liliuokalani's estate after her death in 1917, he held title to this same piece of land based on Hawaiian law at time of annexation which stated all crown lands were government owned not personal possessions of monarchs. The court ruled against Harrison stating that when Hawaii was annexed by America in 1898 through Newlands Resolution (a joint resolution passed by Congress), all public domain including Crown Lands transferred to US government control and did not belong personally to any reigning monarch or their heirs/successors; therefore they could not have been sold privately prior to annexation. This ruling established an important precedent regarding how laws applied during transition periods post-annexations/territorial acquisitions - specifically concerning issues related with real estate transactions involving former sovereign rulers' properties within newly acquired territories/states.

In the dissenting opinion for Harrison v. Magoon, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying a land patent claim in Hawaii was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiff had been unfairly deprived of his property rights without due process of law. They contended that when Congress passed legislation annexing Hawaii and providing for its governance, it did not intend to nullify existing private property rights or claims based on those rights. Instead, they maintained that Congress intended to respect and preserve such claims unless explicitly stated otherwise in the legislation itself - which it did not do in this case. Therefore, they concluded that by upholding the lower court's denial of Harrison’s claim without proper legal justification or procedural fairness, both courts violated his constitutional right to due process under U.S law as well as international principles governing territorial acquisitions.