In the 1895 case of Kelsey v. Crowther, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Utah. The plaintiff, Kelsey, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through preemption rights under federal law and sought to eject the defendant, Crowther from those lands. However, Crowther argued that he held valid title due to his purchase of them at a tax sale conducted by Salt Lake City officials for unpaid taxes on said property. The court ruled in favor of Kelsey stating that while local governments could levy taxes on improvements made upon public lands (such as buildings), they did not have authority to tax unimproved public lands themselves or sell such land for nonpayment of these taxes; thus making Crowther's claim invalid since it was based on an illegal act by city officials.

The dissenting opinion in the Kelsey v. Crowther case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize a key distinction between two types of property rights: those derived from possession and those derived from ownership. The dissenting justices believed that while Mr. Kelsey may have had a right to possess certain assets, he did not necessarily have an absolute right of ownership over them, especially if they were obtained through fraudulent means or used for illegal purposes. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant state laws, arguing that these laws should be interpreted more broadly to protect victims of fraud and other forms of wrongdoing rather than narrowly focusing on protecting property rights at all costs.