In the 1935 case of Legg v. St. John, Trustee, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Legg, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from Native American allottees before they received patents for their allotments and argued that these transactions were valid under federal law at the time they occurred. However, when Congress later passed an act extending restrictions on alienation of such lands without approval by the Secretary of Interior until 1931 (and subsequently extended to 1933), it was unclear whether this applied retroactively to invalidate prior sales like those made by Legg. The defendant trustee challenged Legg's claim arguing that his purchases were void due to lack of required governmental approval as per new legislation and hence he should be considered rightful owner instead. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant St.John stating that Congressional intent behind passing newer laws was clearly aimed at protecting Native Americans from improvident sales and ensuring fair value for their property rights which would not have been possible if earlier unapproved transfers were allowed to stand good.

In the dissenting opinion for LEGG v. ST. JOHN, TRUSTEE, 1935, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying Legg's claim against St. John as trustee of an estate was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of trust law and equity principles. The dissent maintained that under established legal principles governing trusts and trusteeship, Legg should have been allowed to pursue his claim against St.John in his capacity as trustee of the estate in question rather than being forced into litigation with other parties who had no direct involvement or liability concerning the matter at hand. This view held that by forcing Legg into unnecessary litigation with third parties instead of allowing him to directly seek redress from St.John as trustee - which would be more efficient and equitable -the Court not only violated basic tenets of trust law but also undermined fundamental fairness considerations inherent in our judicial system.