In the case of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. Haber in 1897, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land rights. The railway company had been granted certain lands by Congress to aid in its construction but later sold some of these lands to private individuals including Mr. Haber. However, it was discovered that part of this land was swampy and therefore should have been given to the state under an earlier act known as Swamp Land Act before being passed onto the railway company or any other party. The court held that since both acts were public grants by Congress with different purposes - one for aiding railroads and another for draining swamps - they must be construed together so as not to defeat either purpose if possible. Therefore, even though there might be overlapping areas between them due to imperfect descriptions used at those times, such overlaps would not invalidate either grant completely but only affect specific parcels involved directly.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. Haber argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to fence their tracks was an overreach of judicial power. The dissent contended that this ruling interfered with interstate commerce by imposing burdensome regulations on railroad companies operating across state lines. They believed it should be up to Congress, not individual states or courts, to regulate such matters concerning interstate commerce. Furthermore, they expressed concern about the potential for inconsistent laws from different states which could create confusion and inefficiency in railway operations nationwide.