In the 1896 case of Pim v. St. Louis, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and property rights in St. Louis, Missouri. The plaintiff, Pim, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from parties who were granted these by Congress under an act passed in 1831 for their services during the War of 1812 as part of military bounty land warrants program. However, before this purchase was made by Pim's predecessors-in-title (the original grantees), parts of these lands were already occupied and improved upon by other individuals who later sold them to different buyers including defendant city of St.Louis which used it for public purposes like streets etc., without any objection or claim from anyone until now when Pim sued to recover possession based on his superior title derived through Congressional grant. The court held that even though such grants are generally considered superior against all except United States itself but here due to long continued adverse possession with improvements done openly without any challenge over many years has vested good title in occupants under local laws thereby barring recovery by plaintiff despite having originally better title.

In the dissenting opinion for PIM v. ST. LOUIS, 1896, it was argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of the law and its application to this case. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how property rights were being handled under eminent domain laws as applied by St Louis city authorities. They contended that these actions violated due process rights guaranteed under the Constitution because they allowed private property to be taken without just compensation or proper legal procedures being followed. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on what constituted a public use for such takings, arguing instead for a narrower definition which would limit government power over individual properties and protect citizens' rights more effectively.