. Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co. was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1895. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in Omaha, Nebraska. The plaintiff, William Jefferis, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, East Omaha Land Company, in 1883. The defendant argued that the sale was invalid because the land had already been sold to another party in 1881. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jefferis, finding that the defendant had failed to provide sufficient evidence that the land had been sold to another party in 1881. The Court held that the defendant had not provided sufficient proof that the land had been sold to another party, and that the sale to Jefferis was valid. The Court also held that the defendant had failed to provide sufficient evidence that the land had been sold to another party in 1881, and that the sale to Jefferis was valid. The Court's decision in Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co. established the principle that a party must provide sufficient evidence to prove that a sale is invalid. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still used today to determine the validity of sales.

. In the case of Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co., Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of Nebraska law and should be reversed. He asserted that, under Nebraska law, when a contract is made with two or more persons as joint tenants, each tenant has an equal right to possession and enjoyment of the property regardless of who paid for it; thus, if one tenant pays for improvements to the land without consulting his co-tenants first, those improvements do not become his exclusive property but are instead shared by all tenants equally unless otherwise agreed upon in writing beforehand. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there had been such an agreement between these particular parties prior to any payments being made towards improvements on this land—which there was not—the fact remains that no written record exists proving its existence; therefore it cannot be used as evidence against either party in court proceedings.