In the case of Manson v. Duncanson in 1896, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Manson, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to possession. However, the defendant, Duncanson argued that he had acquired title to this same property through adverse possession - essentially arguing that because he had been occupying and using the land for an extended period without any objection from anyone else (including Manson), it should now legally belong to him. The court ruled in favor of Duncanson based on his claim of adverse possession. They found sufficient evidence showing that Duncanson's use and occupation of the land were continuous for more than five years before Manson initiated legal action against him which is consistent with California law regarding adverse possession at that time. This ruling affirmed previous decisions by lower courts upholding Duncason's claim to ownership under principles of adverse possession despite not being originally named as an owner or purchaser.

The dissenting opinion in the Manson v. Duncanson case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Manson guilty of fraudulently obtaining property from Duncanson, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed there were significant issues with how evidence was presented and interpreted during the trial. They contended that certain pieces of evidence used against Manson should have been deemed inadmissible due to their questionable validity and relevance to the charges at hand. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given to circumstantial evidence over direct testimony provided by witnesses who had firsthand knowledge of events related to this case. In their view, these procedural errors undermined the fairness and integrity of Manson's trial thus warranting a reversal or retrial.