In the 1895 case of Markham v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Markham, claimed that he had purchased the land from Mexican citizens who had been granted it by their government before California became part of the U.S., and therefore his claim was protected under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. However, an earlier court decision had declared these original grants invalid because they were not properly recorded at a local public registry as required by Mexican law at that time. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling and rejected Markham's appeal on grounds that even though there might have been errors or irregularities in how Spanish/Mexican laws were applied during those years leading up to American acquisition of California territory, such issues could not be re-litigated decades later due to principles like laches (unreasonable delay) and res judicata (matter already judged). Therefore, despite any potential unfairness towards individuals like Markham who may have bought lands in good faith believing them to be legally granted originally by Mexico’s authorities; overall stability within property rights system outweighed correcting past mistakes or injustices.

In the dissenting opinion for Markham v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on an inheritance from a deceased non-resident alien violated international law principles of comity and reciprocity. The dissent contended that such taxation could lead to retaliatory measures by other nations against U.S. citizens inheriting property abroad, potentially causing diplomatic disputes or even conflicts. Furthermore, they believed this ruling contradicted previous court decisions which had held that states lacked jurisdiction over foreign estates and their distribution among heirs or legatees residing in America. They also pointed out inconsistencies within the majority’s reasoning regarding whether inheritance is considered property located within the country where death occurred or where heir resides; arguing if former then no basis for US taxation exists as estate was situated outside its borders at time of decedent's death.