In Herrick v. Boquillas Land and Cattle Company (1905), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Herrick, claimed that he had purchased the disputed land from its original Mexican owners before it was ceded to the United States following the Mexican-American War. However, Boquillas Land and Cattle Company argued that they were granted this same piece of land by a later act of Congress which aimed to clarify property rights after annexation. The court ruled in favor of Boquillas Land and Cattle Company stating that any claims on lands based on grants made by Mexico needed to be presented within two years after treaty ratification as per Act 67 passed by Congress in 1851; failing which such claims would be considered void. Since Herrick did not present his claim within this time frame, his claim was deemed invalid.

In the dissenting opinion for Herrick v. Boquillas Land and Cattle Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider the nature of land grants under Mexican law prior to California becoming part of the United States. The dissent emphasized that these grants were not absolute transfers of property but rather a form of lease or trust held by grantees on behalf of community members. Therefore, when interpreting such land grant cases, one must take into account this communal aspect inherent in Mexican law at that time. By failing to do so, according to the dissenting view, resulted in an unjust ruling against Herrick who had been using and improving upon a portion of disputed land for years under what he believed was rightful ownership based on his understanding from previous owners' claims which traced back to original Mexican grantee.