In the Marx v. Hanthorn case of 1892, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hanthorn. The dispute arose over a land claim in Oregon where both parties, Marx and Hanthorn, claimed ownership under different laws - Marx under an act granting lands for military wagon roads while Hanthorn claimed it under the Homestead Act. The court held that when two acts of Congress conflict with each other regarding public land claims, priority should be given to settlers who make improvements on the land as per homesteading rights rather than those claiming through railroad grants or similar statutes. Therefore, despite Marx's earlier claim date-wise via a road grant law from 1866 (which was repealed later), preference was given to Hanthorn's subsequent but valid homesteading claim from 1875 because he had made significant improvements on this property.

In the dissenting opinion for Marx v. Hanthorn, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a land patent issued by the United States government was incorrect. He contended that while it is generally true that patents are presumed valid until proven otherwise, this presumption should not apply when there is clear evidence of fraud or mistake. In this case, he believed such evidence existed and thus warranted an exception to the rule. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes and precedent cases regarding preemption rights and homestead laws - asserting they were misapplied in favor of upholding a potentially fraudulent claim over one made in good faith by settlers on public lands. Thus, according to Justice Brewer’s view point; justice would have been better served if courts had more discretion in these matters rather than being bound by rigid rules which may overlook certain nuances or complexities inherent within individual cases.