In the case of Lake Benton First National Bank v. Watt in 1901, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute involving land ownership. The plaintiff, Lake Benton First National Bank, claimed that it had purchased certain lands from an individual who held valid title to them. However, these lands were also claimed by another party based on a preemption right under federal law which allows individuals to settle and improve public land before purchasing it at a minimal price. The defendant argued that this preemptive right invalidated the bank's claim to ownership. The court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that preemption rights are superior even if they have not been fully exercised or perfected into legal titles when competing claims arise from subsequent purchasers without notice of such rights. Therefore, despite having bought and paid for the property first, Lake Benton First National Bank did not hold valid title because their purchase was made without knowledge of existing preemptive rights over those same lands.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lake Benton First National Bank v. Watt argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the law. The dissent believed that a national bank should not be allowed to sue in federal court simply because it is a federally chartered institution, as this would give these banks an unfair advantage over other corporations and individuals who must meet stricter requirements for federal jurisdiction. They contended that such interpretation could potentially flood federal courts with cases better suited for state courts, undermining their ability to effectively handle matters truly within their purview. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power by national banks if given such broad access to federal courts without sufficient justification or need.