In the Merrill v. Monticello case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land titles in Utah Territory. The plaintiff, Merrill, claimed ownership of certain lands based on preemption rights under federal law and sought to eject defendants who were occupying these lands. The defendants argued that they had acquired valid title from an act incorporating the city of Monticello which granted them these lands for public purposes such as streets and squares. However, this grant was made before any survey or platting by government authority took place. The court held that while Congress has power to dispose public territory at its discretion including granting it to municipalities for public use without compensation; such grants must be specific and cannot be implied merely from incorporation statutes like those creating Monticello City Corporation. Furthermore, even if there was a valid grant here (which there wasn't), it could not have taken effect until after official surveys established boundaries within which municipal corporations could claim their allotments. Therefore, since Merrill's preemption claim preceded any potential municipal entitlements over disputed territories due to lack of prior surveys/platting when city corporation statute came into force; he retained superior title against occupants claiming through municipality.

In the dissenting opinion for Merrill v. Monticello, the justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a statute concerning tax sales and redemptions. The dissent argued that this interpretation was inconsistent with previous rulings and could lead to unjust outcomes. Specifically, they believed that if a property owner failed to redeem their property within two years after a tax sale, as required by law, then any subsequent redemption should be considered invalid. They also contended that allowing late redemptions would undermine the certainty of tax sales and discourage potential buyers from participating in these auctions. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between different sections of the same statute which further complicated its application in such cases.