In the case of McNee v. Donahue in 1891, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, McNee, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its original owner and subsequently sold it to Donahue. However, when the original owner died without heirs or will, his estate was given to his siblings under California law - one of whom then sued for possession of the disputed property. The court found that because McNee did not have legal title at the time he sold it to Donahue (since he bought it from someone who didn't own it), there was no valid sale and therefore no transferable title could be passed onto Donahue. As such, they upheld lower courts' decisions granting possession back to one sibling suing on behalf of all others.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McNee v. Donahue argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found McNee liable for damages after his cattle trespassed on Donahue's property and consumed his corn, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove that McNee had intentionally allowed his cattle to trespass and consume Donahue's crops. They believed this lack of intent should have been taken into account when determining liability, as it would be unjust to hold someone responsible for an act they did not knowingly commit or allow. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of Iowa law regarding livestock owners' responsibilities towards preventing their animals from causing damage on others' properties. In their view, these laws were designed primarily to protect farmers from wild animals rather than domesticated ones like cows or horses; therefore applying them in this context seemed inappropriate.