In the Mellen v. Buckner case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in Virginia. The plaintiff, Mellen, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from one Mr. Hanger who had obtained it through inheritance from his father's estate. However, Buckner contested this claim stating that he held rightful title to the property as per an earlier deed granted by Hanger Sr., which superseded any subsequent claims made by his son (Hanger Jr.). The court ruled in favor of Buckner on grounds that under Virginia law at the time when Hanger Sr.'s will was probated and recorded (which happened before his death), it effectively operated as a conveyance inter vivos or 'between living persons'. Therefore, despite not being explicitly mentioned in the will itself; upon its recording and probate - all rights to dispose off or sell inherited property were transferred immediately to heirs without requiring further action post-death of testator i.e., they became effective during lifetime of original owner himself.

The dissenting opinion in Mellen v. Buckner argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of the plaintiff who claimed ownership over certain lands based on an old Spanish land grant, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant issues with the evidence presented by the plaintiff and questioned its authenticity and validity. They believed that these concerns should have been enough to cast doubt on whether or not this claim could be upheld under U.S law governing such grants. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given to testimonies supporting the plaintiff’s case while dismissing those against it as unreliable or irrelevant without sufficient justification for doing so.