In the case of Medbury v. United States in 1898, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Medbury, claimed that he had purchased land from Native Americans who were part of the Miami tribe and held it under a French grant before Indiana became a state. However, this claim was disputed by the U.S government which argued that these lands were ceded to them through treaties with various tribes including Miami tribe in 1805 and 1809 respectively. The court sided with the government stating that even if there was an original French grant for this land (which wasn't proven), it would have been invalidated by these treaties as they transferred all rights to tribal lands to federal control regardless of any prior claims or grants. Therefore, Medbury's purchase wouldn't be recognized as valid since he bought it after these treaties came into effect.

In the dissenting opinion for Medbury v. United States, it was argued that the government's seizure of property without due process violated constitutional rights. The justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "public use," stating that it should be strictly construed to mean actual use by the public and not merely potential or indirect benefit. He further contended that if a private corporation could seize land under eminent domain simply because their operations might indirectly serve public interest, then any business could potentially do so - an outcome he believed would lead to widespread abuse and injustice. Moreover, he pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been ruled on previously by different courts across states, indicating a lack of clear legal precedent or consensus on this issue.