In the case of Johnson v. Drew, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Florida. The plaintiff, Johnson, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who obtained it through a Spanish Land Grant before Florida became part of the United States. However, this grant was not confirmed by Congress until after his purchase. Meanwhile, defendant Drew bought the same piece of land at public auction from state authorities who seized it for unpaid taxes and sold it without knowledge or consideration of any previous claims to ownership. The court held that under U.S law governing territories acquired by treaty (in this case with Spain), prior valid grants are respected but must be presented for confirmation within a certain period; otherwise they become void and lands revert back to public domain status - subject to taxation and sale for non-payment thereof. Therefore since Johnson's predecessor failed to confirm their claim within prescribed time limit following Florida's acquisition by US (despite having opportunity), their title ceased being legally recognizable hence couldn't pass onto him when he later bought said property privately; whereas Drew’s purchase at tax-sale auction conferred upon him legitimate title thereto as per applicable laws then in force.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Johnson v. Drew argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Mr. Drew, was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of legal precedent and contract law principles. The dissent contended that Mr. Johnson should have been allowed to recover damages from Mr. Drew for breach of contract because he had fulfilled his contractual obligations by providing labor and materials as agreed upon between both parties before their disagreement arose over additional work not specified in their original agreement. The dissent further criticized the majority for failing to consider evidence suggesting that Mr. Drew had implicitly accepted this extra work without objection at first, only later refusing payment after benefiting from it - behavior deemed unfair under established rules governing implied contracts or quasi-contracts where one party unjustly enriches themselves at another's expense without compensation.