In the case of Ramsey v. Tacoma Land Company, 1904, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a land grant made by Congress to aid in the construction of a railroad could be transferred or sold before it had been fully earned. The plaintiff, Ramsey, argued that he had purchased part of this land from an individual who claimed to have bought it from Tacoma Land Company (TLC). However, TLC denied selling any such property and maintained that they still owned it as per their agreement with Congress. The court ruled in favor of TLC stating that until all conditions stipulated by Congress were met for earning the land grant - which included completion of sections of rail line within specific time frames - ownership remained with them and thus they couldn't have sold any portion beforehand. Therefore, any alleged sale prior to meeting these conditions would be invalid rendering subsequent claims void too.

In the dissenting opinion for Ramsey v. Tacoma Land Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling favoring Tacoma Land Company over land rights in Washington state contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings on similar cases. The dissent emphasized that under existing law and precedent, when two parties claim ownership of a piece of property based on different government grants, priority should be given to the party who first received their grant - regardless if they were aware of any conflicting claims at the time. In this case, Ramsey had obtained his title from an 1866 Act granting railroad companies land rights before Tacoma Land Company received its patent in 1892. Therefore, according to established legal principles and precedents set by earlier Supreme Court decisions such as Schulenberg v Houston (1875) and Leavenworth Railroad Co v United States (1884), Ramsey should have been recognized as having superior title over the disputed lands rather than Tacoma Land Company.