In the case of Kennedy v. McKee in 1891, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership and mineral rights. The plaintiff, Kennedy, claimed that he had purchased mining property from an individual who did not have legal title to sell it. He argued that because he had made improvements on the land and mined it for several years without any objections from others, he should be considered its rightful owner under Colorado's adverse possession laws. However, McKee contested this claim by arguing that she was the actual owner of the property as she inherited it from her father who held a valid patent issued by U.S government. The court ruled in favor of McKee stating that federal law governed matters related to patents for public lands; therefore state laws regarding adverse possession could not apply here. It further clarified that only those with legitimate claims can benefit from such laws - which wasn't applicable in this scenario since Kennedy knew about his seller’s lack of proper title when purchasing said property.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kennedy v. McKee argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of maritime law. The dissenting justices believed that a ship owner should not be held liable for damages caused by an independent contractor, especially when there is no evidence to suggest negligence on part of the ship owner. They contended that this ruling would place an undue burden on ship owners who are already subject to numerous risks and liabilities inherent in their industry. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "seaworthiness," arguing it should only apply to physical conditions onboard a vessel, not its crew or contractors' actions.