In the McLane v. King case of 1891, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land ownership in California. The plaintiff, McLane, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had received it as part of a Mexican Land Grant before California became part of the United States. However, this grant was not confirmed by Congress until after his purchase. Meanwhile, King acquired title to the same property through another source and began mining operations thereon without compensating McLane for any extracted minerals. The court held that since Congress did not confirm the original grant until after McLane's purchase, he could not have obtained valid title at that time; thus making him ineligible to claim damages for mineral extraction by King during his possession period prior to confirmation. Furthermore, even though subsequent legislation allowed retroactive validation of such grants upon certain conditions being met (which were fulfilled here), these provisions only applied where no third party rights intervened - which wasn't applicable in this situation due to King’s involvement. Therefore, while acknowledging some merit in both parties' claims under different legal principles or circumstances – ultimately neither prevailed entirely due their specific factual context and timing issues involved.

The dissenting opinion in the McLane v. King case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider and apply relevant legal principles. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiff, Mr. McLane, had a valid claim against Mr. King for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract related to their joint business venture involving mining operations in Mexico. They contended that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial demonstrating both parties' understanding and agreement on specific terms of their partnership, which they claimed Mr. King violated by unilaterally withdrawing his investment and support from the project without proper notice or justification as required under their agreement. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Mexican law regarding property rights and contracts, arguing instead that such laws were not applicable or enforceable in this particular case due to its unique circumstances including its international nature involving U.S citizens conducting business abroad. Furthermore, they criticized how lower courts handled procedural aspects during litigation process especially concerning jury instructions about assessing liability and calculating damages which they found misleading or confusing thereby potentially influencing outcome unfairly towards defendant’s favor. In conclusion, these justices felt strongly enough about these issues to voice their objections publicly through this formal written dissent expressing hope future cases would be adjudicated more fairly based upon correct application of law rather than perceived biases or misunderstandings.