In the case of Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wismer, 1917, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The Northern Pacific Railway Company claimed that it owned certain lands under an Act of Congress from 1864 which granted them every alternate section of public land for twenty miles on each side of their railroad line. However, these lands were also claimed by Mr. Wismer who had purchased them from the State of Minnesota in good faith and without knowledge about any potential claim by the railway company. The court ruled in favor of Mr.Wismer stating that although there was indeed an act granting such lands to railway companies, this particular piece was not part thereof because at that time it belonged to Indian tribes and hence could not be considered as 'public land'. Therefore, when Minnesota later acquired this territory after extinguishing Indian titles and sold it to Wismer, he became its rightful owner.

In the dissenting opinion for Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wismer, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision that a railway company could not claim land under an 1864 Act of Congress if it had already received benefits from another act. He argued that nothing in either act suggested they were mutually exclusive and therefore, receiving benefits from one did not preclude benefiting from the other. Furthermore, he pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest any fraudulent intent on behalf of the railway company when claiming lands under both acts. Therefore, he believed their actions were lawful and should have been upheld by the court.