In the case of McIntire v. Pryor in 1898, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, McIntire, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from an Indian tribe through a treaty ratified by Congress and thus held legal title to these lands. However, the defendant Pryor argued that this sale was invalid as it violated federal law which prohibited private sales of Indian lands without express Congressional approval. The court ruled in favor of Pryor stating that under U.S law at the time (the Nonintercourse Act), any purchase of tribal land required explicit congressional approval regardless if there was a treaty or not; since such approval wasn't obtained for this particular transaction between McIntire and the tribe, his claim to ownership was deemed invalid.

The dissenting opinion in the McIntire v. Pryor case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of property law and rights. The dissenting justices believed that a person should have full control over their own property, including the right to sell or transfer it as they see fit. They contended that by denying Mr. McIntire this right, based on an alleged debt owed by his father-in-law (Mr.Pryor), the court was infringing upon his personal liberties and violating fundamental principles of justice and fairness. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Kentucky state laws regarding inheritance and debt repayment, arguing instead for a more literal reading which would not impose any obligation on Mr.McIntire to repay debts incurred by Mr.Pryor prior to his marriage into the family.