In the case of Harrison v. Morton, 1897, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Virginia. The plaintiff, Harrison, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who was given power of attorney by his brother to sell it while he was out of state. However, when the absent brother returned and discovered what had happened, he argued that his power of attorney did not include selling real estate and thus declared the sale invalid. The court ruled in favor of Morton (the absent brother), stating that unless explicitly stated otherwise within a document granting power-of-attorney rights or under specific circumstances outlined by law such as death or mental incapacity where general powers are assumed to be granted implicitly; those powers do not extend to actions involving real property transactions like sales or leases without explicit authorization.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Harrison v. Morton argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider the original intent and purpose of a law passed by Congress in 1866, which granted certain rights to railroad companies. The dissent believed that this law should have been interpreted more broadly, allowing for greater flexibility and adaptability over time. They contended that such an interpretation would better serve public interests and promote economic development. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on property rights, arguing instead for a more nuanced understanding that takes into account various factors such as historical context and societal needs rather than rigidly adhering to traditional notions of private ownership.