The Horner v. United States case in 1891 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of a will and its impact on property rights. The testator, John McDonogh, had left his estate to two cities for educational purposes but also included provisions that if these bequests were not fulfilled within a certain period, the property would revert back to his heirs or assigns. After several years of litigation between the cities and potential heirs, an agreement was reached where some properties were sold off with proceeds going towards education as per McDonogh's wishes while others were returned to his relatives. However, this arrangement was challenged by other claimants leading to further legal disputes which eventually reached the Supreme Court. The court ruled against these new claims stating that they lacked merit since all parties involved in earlier agreements had acted in good faith based on their understanding of McDonogh's intentions at that time. Furthermore, it held that even if there had been any errors or misinterpretations during previous proceedings; such issues could not be raised again after so many years especially when substantial actions (like sale or transfer of properties) have already taken place based on those decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Horner v. United States, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the law and its application to this case. He argued that while it was clear that Horner had committed fraud, there were no legal grounds to convict him under a statute intended to punish those who defraud banks or corporations in which the U.S. is a stockholder. The government did not hold any shares in Lincoln National Bank at the time of Horner’s fraudulent actions; therefore, he could not be convicted under this specific statute according to Justice Lamar's interpretation of it.