In the 1911 case of Lenman v. Jones, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Lenman, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from someone who was not its rightful owner and therefore sought to have his title confirmed by the court. However, Jones argued that she was actually the true owner because her ancestors had owned it for many years before selling it to an intermediary who then sold it to Lenman. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jones on appeal after finding that there were no legal grounds for overturning previous rulings confirming her family's ownership rights over several generations. This decision reinforced principles regarding real estate transactions and established precedent about respecting long-standing property rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Lenman v. Jones, the justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of jurisdiction in this case. The dissent argued that while it was true that a federal court could not issue an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court, there were exceptions to this rule when necessary to prevent irreparable injury or loss. In such cases, they believed that federal courts had both the right and duty to intervene. They also contended that whether or not these conditions existed was a question of fact rather than law and should therefore be decided by trial rather than dismissed outright as per the majority decision. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies within previous rulings on similar matters which further complicated their ability to agree with the majority’s ruling without reservation.