In the case of Larkin v. Upton in 1891, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Larkin, claimed that he had purchased a parcel of land from an individual who had obtained it through inheritance. However, this individual was not listed as an heir in the original owner's will and therefore did not have legal rights to sell the property. The defendant, Upton, argued that he was entitled to possession of the property because he bought it from someone who acquired it legally under California law at a tax sale after its previous owner failed to pay taxes on it for several years. The court found in favor of Upton based on two main points: first, they determined that even though there were irregularities with how his seller acquired title to the property (through tax default), these issues didn't invalidate his claim; secondly - and more importantly - they held that since Larkin knew about these potential problems when buying but chose not to investigate them further or take any action until much later (after improvements were made by others), he couldn't now complain about them. This decision reinforced important principles related both to real estate transactions specifically and contract law generally: namely buyers must exercise due diligence before purchasing properties; also once parties agree terms then unless fraud can be proven courts will usually uphold those agreements regardless subsequent disputes arising.

In the dissenting opinion for Larkin v. Upton, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there was a substantial error in the original trial court proceedings. He believed that even if an error occurred, it did not necessarily mean that justice had been denied or miscarried. The main issue of contention revolved around instructions given by the judge during jury deliberation; however, Justice Bradley maintained these were minor errors which did not significantly impact the outcome of the case. Furthermore, he contended that any potential confusion could have been clarified through additional questioning from jurors rather than necessitating a retrial. Therefore, he disagreed with overturning a verdict on such grounds without clear evidence of significant harm done to either party involved in litigation.