In the case of Moore v. Cormode, a dispute arose over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Moore, claimed that he had purchased the property from an individual who had received it through a lottery system established by Congress to distribute lands previously owned by Native American tribes. However, the defendant, Cormode argued that this sale was invalid because at the time of purchase and transfer of title deed to Moore's predecessor-in-interest (the person from whom Moore bought), there were still restrictions on alienation (transfer) imposed by Congress on such lands which prohibited their sale or lease without government approval. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cormode stating that any attempt to sell or lease these restricted lands without governmental consent would be void and have no legal effect. Therefore, since there was no valid conveyance made to Moore's predecessor-in-interest due to lack of required governmental approval at that time; consequently his subsequent purchase also lacked validity making him not legally entitled for possession against true owner i.e., Cormode.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Moore v. Cormode argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous court rulings and legal principles regarding property rights. The dissent contended that the plaintiff, Moore, had a legitimate claim to ownership of certain mining properties based on his prior possession and use of them, even though he did not have formal title deeds. They believed this should be recognized under common law principles granting rights to those who make productive use of land or other resources. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant state laws concerning mining claims and mineral rights. In their view, these laws were intended to protect miners like Moore from being unjustly dispossessed by later claimants such as Cormode who had not actually worked or developed the mines themselves.