In the case of Macfarland v. Brown in 1902, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Macfarland, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under his father's will which were being held by the defendant, Brown. However, these lands had been sold by an executor of his father's estate before they could be transferred to him as per his father’s wishes outlined in the will. The court found that although there may have been irregularities with how this sale was conducted and approved by local courts at the time it occurred (which would normally invalidate such a transaction), too much time had passed since then for any legal challenge to be made now - even if those challenging it only recently became aware of their potential claim or interest in said property due to factors beyond their control like age or lack thereof knowledge about these events when they happened originally.

In the dissenting opinion for Macfarland v. Brown, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of jurisdictional issues and due process rights. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. MacFarland's constitutional right to due process had been violated because he was not given proper notice or opportunity to defend himself against Mrs. Brown's claims before she obtained a divorce decree in another state while he resided in Washington D.C., where they were married and lived together until their separation. They contended that this case should have fallen under the jurisdiction of courts in Washington D.C., rather than those of Idaho, where Mrs. Brown moved after their separation and filed for divorce without notifying her husband properly about her intentions or proceedings thereon as required by law at both places then.