In the case of Porter v. Sabin, 1892, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Florida. The plaintiff, Porter, claimed that he had purchased the land from its original owner and thus held rightful title to it. However, Sabin argued that he was entitled to the property because he had been occupying it for several years under a homestead claim filed before Porter's purchase took place. The lower court ruled in favor of Sabin based on his prior occupancy and use of the land. The Supreme Court reversed this decision upon appeal by asserting that mere occupation or use does not confer legal ownership if there is no valid claim or entry made according to federal law governing public lands at disposal. In other words, since Sabin did not have any lawful record proving his right over the disputed property when Porter bought it from its original owner who possessed an authentic title deed; therefore, Porter was declared as legitimate proprietor.

In the dissenting opinion for Porter v. Sabin, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there was an actual controversy between the parties involved in this case. He believed that if no real dispute existed, then any judgment rendered would be purely advisory and thus outside of judicial power as defined by Article III of the Constitution. Furthermore, he disagreed with how his colleagues interpreted certain aspects of bankruptcy law pertaining to property rights and transfers during insolvency proceedings. In particular, he felt they wrongly concluded that a debtor could not transfer their property after declaring bankruptcy without first obtaining permission from creditors or court-appointed trustees.