In the Lincoln v. Power case of 1893, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over mining claims in Montana. The plaintiff, Lincoln, alleged that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of his mining claim by the defendant, Power. He sought to recover damages and regain possession of his property. However, Power argued that he had legally acquired ownership through adverse possession - a doctrine allowing someone to acquire legal title to property if they openly possess it for an extended period without protest from the original owner. The court ruled in favor of Power on grounds that Lincoln failed to take action within the statutory limitation period after becoming aware of Powers' adverse claim. This decision reinforced two key principles: first is respect for statutes of limitations which provide certainty and finality in legal disputes; second is recognition for adverse possession as a legitimate means by which property rights can be transferred when original owners fail to assert their rights timely.

In the dissenting opinion for Lincoln v. Power, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and violated principles of federalism. He contended that states have a right to regulate their own internal affairs without interference from Congress or federal courts unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights. In this case, he believed that Rhode Island's law regulating oyster fishing in its waters did not infrally on any federally protected rights and therefore should be upheld. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of interstate commerce clause arguing it would give too much power to Congress over state matters which could lead to potential abuses in future cases.