The U.S. Supreme Court case Lipphard v. Humphrey in 1907 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the interpretation of wills and deeds. The plaintiff, Lipphard, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands based on a deed from his father's will which had been executed years prior to his death. However, the defendant, Humphrey argued that she held rightful title to these lands due to her husband’s purchase of them before they were included in the aforementioned will or deed. The court ruled against Lipphard stating that even though there might have been an error made by not including these lands into the original sale agreement between Humphrey's husband and Lipphard's father; it did not change the fact that legal possession was transferred when they were purchased by Humphrey’s husband. Therefore, despite any potential oversight or mistake made during drafting of documents related with property transfer at earlier stage; actual physical possession along with payment for said property took precedence over claims based on later discovered documentation errors.

In the dissenting opinion for Lipphard v. Humphrey, the justice argued that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to support the majority's decision. The dissent focused on questioning whether or not Mr. Humphrey had indeed acted in bad faith and if he had intentionally deceived Mr. Lipphard when selling him land with an undisclosed mortgage lien attached to it. The justice believed that these allegations were based more on speculation than concrete proof, as no direct evidence was presented showing that Humphrey knew about the lien but chose not to disclose this information during their transaction. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given to circumstantial evidence by other justices in reaching their conclusion against Humphrey.