In the case of Naeglin v. De Cordoba, a dispute arose over property rights in California. The plaintiff, Naeglin, claimed that he had purchased land from one Jose Maria Flores in 1865 and subsequently obtained a patent for it from the United States government in 1871. However, defendant De Cordoba contended that she was the rightful owner of this land as she inherited it from her father who bought it directly from Mexico before California became part of the U.S., thus predating Naeglin's claim. The Supreme Court ruled against Naeglin stating that his purchase did not invalidate previous ownership claims under Mexican law which were protected by treaty when California joined America. Therefore, despite obtaining a patent for the land later on, his claim to ownership was deemed invalid because he failed to prove Flores' legal right to sell him said property initially.

In the dissenting opinion for Naeglin v. De Cordoba, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying an inheritance claim by foreign heirs contradicted established legal principles regarding international law and property rights. The dissenting justices contended that under existing laws of succession and treaties between nations, the foreign heirs had a valid claim to their relative's estate in California. They believed that barring these individuals from inheriting solely based on their nationality or domicile was unjust and discriminatory. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain clauses within U.S.-Spanish treaty agreements which were used as justification for denying the inheritance claims. In essence, they felt this case represented an overreach by domestic courts into matters better handled through diplomatic channels or international tribunals.