The Pendleton v. Russell case in 1891 revolved around a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Pendleton, claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from its original owner and thus held rightful title to it. However, the defendant, Russell, argued that he was entitled to the property because of his long-term possession and use of it under "adverse possession," a legal principle allowing someone who has openly occupied and used another's property for an extended period without being challenged by the rightful owner to claim title to it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Russell based on evidence showing his continuous occupation and improvement of the land for more than twenty years without any objection from either Pendleton or previous owners. This ruling affirmed adverse possession as a valid means of acquiring legal ownership over real estate when certain conditions are met - namely open, notorious (obvious), continuous occupancy/use for a statutory period (which varies by state) along with paying taxes on said property during this time.

In the dissenting opinion for Pendleton v. Russell, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Alabama law regarding property rights and inheritance. He argued that under Alabama law, a widow was entitled to dower rights in her husband's real estate properties regardless of whether he had sold them before his death without her consent or knowledge. According to him, this right could not be extinguished by any act of the husband alone during his lifetime unless she voluntarily relinquishes it through some legal process after being fully informed about her rights and consequences of such action. Therefore, Mrs.Pendleton should have been allowed to claim an interest in Mr.Russell’s land which he purchased from her late husband even though she did not explicitly assert her dower right at the time when this transaction took place because she might have been unaware about its existence or implications then.