In the 1942 case of Marine Harbor Properties, Inc. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., Trustee, et al., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and lease agreements in New York City's harbor area. The plaintiff, Marine Harbor Properties (MHP), claimed that it had acquired title to certain underwater lands through various legislative grants dating back to 1837 and sought compensation for alleged trespasses by several defendants who were operating under leases from the city of New York. However, MHP's claim was based on an erroneous interpretation of those grants which did not actually convey any property rights but merely authorized construction activities in public waters subject to state regulation and control. The court ruled against MHP stating that such legislative authorizations could not be construed as proprietary transfers because they lacked explicit language indicating intent to divest the state or city of their sovereign interests in these submerged lands for navigation purposes. Furthermore, even if some form of limited private interest might have been granted initially for specific uses like wharfing out or dockage facilities, this would not extend automatically into full fee simple ownership without clear statutory provisions supporting such conversion. Therefore, all subsequent transactions involving these disputed properties whether by sale or lease were deemed invalid since they originated from a non-existent right.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Marine Harbor Properties, Inc. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., Trustee, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Marine Harbor was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings on similar matters. The dissenting justices believed that the majority had misinterpreted key aspects of bankruptcy law and failed to properly consider important facts about how Marine Harbor conducted its business operations. They contended that this oversight led to an unfair outcome for Marine Harbor, which they felt should have been allowed more flexibility in managing its assets during bankruptcy proceedings. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for not providing clear guidance on what constitutes "fair consideration" under New York’s fraudulent conveyance statute - a central issue in this case - thereby creating potential confusion for future cases involving similar issues.