In the Lloyd v. Preston case of 1892, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Virginia. The plaintiff, Lloyd, claimed that he had purchased lands from a man named Smith who had acquired them through an inheritance from his father's will. However, the defendant, Preston argued that Smith did not have legal rights to sell these lands as they were part of an entailment (a provision limiting inheritance to certain heirs) established by his grandfather's will and thus could only be passed down directly within their family line. The court found in favor of Preston based on two main points: firstly because it was proven that there was indeed an entailment clause present in Smith’s grandfather’s will; secondly because under Virginia law at the time (which followed English common law), such entails could only be broken if all parties with potential interest agreed - which hadn't happened here since some possible inheritors were still minors when Smith sold off parts of this property. Therefore, despite having bought these lands in good faith believing they belonged outright to Mr. Smith without any restrictions attached – Mr.Lloyd lost out due to complexities surrounding old-fashioned laws about hereditary estates and how they can legally change hands.

In the dissenting opinion for Lloyd v. Preston, the justice argued that while a bank may have rights to recover money paid under mistake of fact, it should not apply in this case due to negligence on part of the bank's cashier. The justice believed that when a person conducts business with such carelessness and disregard for their duties, they should bear the consequences of their actions rather than being allowed to shift responsibility onto others who were innocent parties in good faith. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's interpretation of "mistake," arguing that it was more akin to an oversight or neglectful error rather than an honest misunderstanding about facts. He also pointed out inconsistencies within previous rulings regarding similar cases which further complicated matters and made him question whether there truly existed any legal precedent supporting majority’s decision.