In the case of Harrison v. Perea in 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land grants in New Mexico that were made when it was still a territory of Mexico. The plaintiff, Harrison, claimed ownership based on an alleged grant from the Mexican government prior to its cession to the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. However, he had not presented his claim for confirmation before Congress or any tribunal authorized by Congress within two years after passage of an act requiring such presentation (Act passed March 3rd, 1891). The defendant Perea argued that this failure invalidated Harrison's claim and thus he could take possession as purchaser at a tax sale. The court held that although there is no statute limiting time for bringing suit upon rejected claims like those involved here; yet where one claiming title under Mexican Grant has slept upon his rights until after passage of Act March 3rd, 1891 without presenting his claim for confirmation before Congress or any tribunal authorized by congress within two years thereafter; then fails to bring suit until more than three years later - such delay constitutes laches barring recovery.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Harrison v. Perea argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which dismissed an appeal on grounds of jurisdictional issues, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were sufficient grounds for federal jurisdiction and thus, the Supreme Court should have heard the appeal. They believed that dismissing it based on technicalities related to jurisdiction undermined justice and fair play. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential misuse or abuse of such dismissals in future cases where litigants might be denied their rightful opportunity to present their arguments before higher courts due to similar procedural objections raised by opposing parties.