In the Parker v. Ormsby case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Nevada. The plaintiff, Parker, claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from an individual who had acquired it through preemption rights under federal law. However, Ormsby County argued that they owned this land due to a Congressional Act which granted certain lands to Nevada for educational purposes upon its admission into statehood in 1864. The court ruled in favor of Parker stating that at the time when Congress passed this act, there was no survey defining what specific lands were being granted and thus could not include those already occupied by preemptors like Parker's predecessor-in-interest. Therefore, since his predecessor’s claim predates Nevada's statehood and subsequent grant from Congress; his purchase is valid and he holds rightful title to said property.

In the dissenting opinion for Parker v. Ormsby, the justice disagreed with the majority's ruling that a mortgagee has no right to sue in federal court if they are not in possession of the property. The justice argued that this interpretation contradicts previous rulings and common law principles which allow a mortgagee to bring suit even without physical possession of their collateral. They contended that denying such rights would undermine contractual agreements and could potentially harm financial institutions who rely on mortgages as security for loans. Furthermore, they believed it was unjust to deny these entities access to federal courts simply because they do not physically possess their collateral, especially when state laws recognize their legal interest in said properties.