In the case of Porter v. Banks, a dispute arose over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Porter, claimed that he had purchased the property from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, Banks argued that this was invalid as the original owner did not fulfill residency requirements necessary for preemption and thus could not legally transfer ownership to Porter. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Banks stating that although there were some irregularities with how the original owner acquired his title to the land (he didn't live on it continuously), these issues were resolved when he received a patent from the government confirming his claim to said land. Therefore, any subsequent sale or transfer of this property would be considered valid because once a patent is issued by U.S Government; it cannot be challenged even if there are flaws in its issuance process.

In the dissenting opinion for Porter v. Banks, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which held that a bank could not be sued by an individual who had been defrauded by one of its officers - was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this interpretation of law would allow banks and other corporations to evade responsibility for fraudulent actions committed by their employees or agents, even when those actions were carried out within the scope of their employment or agency. They contended that if such entities are allowed to benefit from these fraudulent transactions without being held accountable, it would encourage dishonesty and corruption in business dealings. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on how liability should be determined in cases involving fraud perpetrated through corporate entities; instead advocating for a more expansive approach where both individuals and institutions can be held liable depending on circumstances surrounding each case.