In the 1893 Supreme Court case, Knapp v. Morss, the dispute revolved around a patent for an improvement in grain drills that was granted to William H. Morss on April 7th, 1885. The plaintiff, George W. Knapp & Co., alleged that this patent was invalid due to prior use and knowledge of such improvements before its issuance date by other inventors or manufacturers who were not named in the suit. The court held that evidence presented did show previous usage and knowledge of similar devices but failed to establish these as identical or equivalent to what was claimed under Morss's patent; thus it could not invalidate his rights over said invention. Furthermore, even if there had been proof of earlier use or knowledge about similar inventions within two years preceding application for a patent (as per Revised Statutes section 4920), it would still be insufficient grounds for nullification unless those involved were parties in the lawsuit - which they weren't. Therefore, Justice Gray ruled against Knapp & Co., upholding Mr. Morss's exclusive right over his patented improvement in grain drills.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of KNAPP v. MORSS, 1893, it was argued that there were no grounds to reverse the decision made by lower courts. The dissenting justices believed that Knapp had not been defrauded as he claimed and therefore did not deserve any compensation from Morss. They pointed out that Knapp had willingly entered into a contract with Morss after being fully informed about all aspects of their business agreement. Furthermore, they noted that Knapp's claim of fraud was based on his own misinterpretation and misunderstanding of certain terms in their contract rather than any deceitful actions taken by Morss. Therefore, they concluded that since there was no evidence proving fraudulent behavior on part of Morss or showing him taking unfair advantage over Knapp during their negotiations; reversing the judgment would be unjustified.