In the 1900 case Looker v. Maynard, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Looker, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through an Indian allotment under federal law and sought to eject the defendant, Maynard from said property. However, Maynard argued that he was entitled to stay because of his homestead rights granted by Congress when it opened up these lands for settlement. The court ruled in favor of Lookard stating that while Congress did grant settlers like Maynard certain privileges such as preemption rights or homesteading claims on public lands; those provisions were not applicable here since this particular tract of land was allotted specifically for Indians under federal law and thus exempted from general laws regarding public domain.

The dissenting opinion in the Looker v. Maynard case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply the law regarding property rights. The dissent believed that Mr. Looker had a valid claim to ownership of certain lands based on his purchase from Mrs. Maynard, despite her husband not having formally relinquished his dower rights prior to her sale of the land to Mr. Looker. The dissent pointed out that under common law principles, a wife could sell her real estate without her husband's consent if he was permanently absent or otherwise incapable of acting; this principle should have applied here given Mr. Maynard’s long-term absence due to insanity at time of sale by Mrs.Maynard . Furthermore, they contended that even if there were some irregularity in how Mrs.Maynard sold land , any such defect would not necessarily invalidate subsequent sales made in good faith by purchasers unaware of these issues - like Mr.Looker . Thus, according to them,the court erred when it ruled against him.