In the case of Houston and Texas Central Railroad Company v. Mayes in 1905, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership rights. The plaintiff, Mayes, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had obtained it through a patent issued by the state of Texas. However, this same parcel was also part of lands granted to Houston and Texas Central Railroad Company by federal legislation for railway construction purposes. The railroad company argued that their claim superseded any subsequent transactions because they received their grant before the state-issued patent. The court held in favor of Mayes stating that while Congress did pass legislation granting certain lands to railroads for development purposes; these grants were not absolute but rather contingent upon identification or location (i.e., selection) and approval by government officials - which hadn't occurred at time when State's patent was issued to original owner from whom Mayes bought his land later on. Therefore, since there was no official record indicating such actions took place prior to issuance of state's patent; it could not be assumed or inferred merely based on passage date alone without concrete evidence proving otherwise hence making latter transaction valid over former one thereby affirming lower courts' decisions upholding said validity.

In the dissenting opinion for Houston and Texas Central Railroad Company v. Mayes, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing damages for mental anguish in cases of mishandled corpses went against precedent. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling expanded liability beyond what had been traditionally recognized under common law principles. They contended that while emotional distress is certainly real and can be severe, it does not have the same tangible impact as physical injury or property damage. As such, they felt it should not be treated on par with these more concrete forms of harm when determining compensation in civil lawsuits. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses if plaintiffs were allowed to recover large sums based purely on subjective claims of emotional suffering without any requirement to demonstrate actual financial loss or other objective harm.