In the case of Johnson v. Collier, 1911, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Johnson, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Collier argued that he had acquired title to this same property through adverse possession - essentially by occupying and using it for an extended period without challenge from anyone else including the legal owner. The court ruled in favor of Collier based on evidence showing his continuous use and occupation of said land for more than five years prior to filing suit against him by Johnson. This ruling upheld Texas law which states that if someone openly occupies another person's unoccupied land continuously for at least five years while paying taxes on it during this time frame they can gain legal ownership via adverse possession. This decision reinforced state laws regarding adverse possession as well as clarified how these laws should be applied when determining rightful ownership disputes involving real estate properties.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Johnson v. Collier argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on cotton futures contracts was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings by the court. The dissenters believed that such contracts were not subject to taxation because they did not involve actual possession or ownership of goods, but rather speculative transactions based on future prices. They asserted that these types of agreements are purely financial arrangements and should be treated as such under law, rather than being classified as property transactions subject to taxation. Furthermore, they contended that this ruling could potentially open up all manner of financial instruments and securities for similar treatment which would have far-reaching implications for commerce and trade across state lines.