In the case of Kenaday v. Sinnott, 1900, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Kenaday, claimed that he had purchased a parcel of land from an individual who had acquired it through preemption rights under federal law. However, Sinnott argued that this was not valid because at the time of purchase by Kenaday's predecessor-in-interest (the person from whom he bought), there were no legal provisions for preemptive rights on public lands in California due to its status as a newly admitted state without established laws governing such matters. The court ruled in favor of Sinnott and held that until Congress passed legislation allowing for preemption claims on public lands within new states like California - which did not occur until after the disputed sale took place - any purported sales based on these non-existent rights were invalid and could not confer legitimate title to buyers.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kenaday v. Sinnott argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret and apply maritime law, particularly with respect to salvage rights. The dissent contended that the salvors had a legitimate claim over the property they saved from shipwreck, even if it was later discovered that this property belonged to another party who was not initially involved in or aware of their salvage efforts. They believed that denying these claims would discourage future acts of rescue at sea, as potential salvors might fear legal repercussions for their actions. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of ownership rights under maritime law and felt it unjustly favored those who did nothing to save or recover lost property over those who took significant risks and expended resources doing so.