The Ocean Beach Heights, Inc. v. Browncrummer Investment Co., 1937 case revolved around a dispute over land ownership in Florida. The plaintiff, Ocean Beach Heights, claimed that they had purchased the property from the state of Florida and were therefore its rightful owners. However, the defendants (Browncrummer Investment Company and others) argued that they held title to the same land due to an earlier purchase from a private individual who was allegedly granted ownership by Spain before it ceded Florida to the United States in 1821. The Supreme Court ruled against Ocean Beach Heights on two grounds: firstly because there was no proof that Spain had ever granted such rights; secondly because even if such rights existed at some point, they would have been extinguished when Florida became part of U.S territory as per international law principles governing territorial changes. This decision upheld previous rulings stating that all lands not specifically allocated remained public domain after acquisition by U.S government - thus reinforcing federal authority over state claims regarding unallocated lands within their borders.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ocean Beach Heights, Inc. v. Browncrummer Investment Co., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect and failed to properly interpret Florida law regarding land development contracts. The dissenting justices believed that the contract between Ocean Beach Heights and Browncrummer Investment Company should have been considered void due to its violation of public policy, as it allowed for an indefinite extension of time for completion without any obligation on behalf of Browncrummer to actually complete construction or improvements on the property. They contended this created an unfair situation where one party could indefinitely delay their obligations while still retaining rights under the contract - a scenario they felt was not supported by existing legal principles or precedents.