In the case of Johnson v. Sayre (1894), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Alabama. The plaintiff, Johnson, claimed that he had purchased property from an individual who had obtained it through a tax sale. However, the defendant, Sayre contested this claim and argued that he was the rightful owner because his ancestors were granted this land by Spain before it became part of U.S territory. The court ruled in favor of Sayre stating that Spanish grants are to be respected under U.S law as long as they were made prior to 1819 when Alabama became a state and if there is no evidence suggesting fraud or unfairness in obtaining such grant.

In the dissenting opinion for Johnson v. Sayre, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Sayre was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Johnson had been unfairly treated by the legal system due to an error made by his attorney during trial proceedings which resulted in him being unable to present crucial evidence supporting his case. They contended that this mistake should not have led to such severe consequences for Johnson and instead, he should have been given another chance to present his case properly before a jury. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain laws related to property rights and contracts which were central issues in this dispute between Johnson and Sayre.