In the 1905 case of Rankin v. Barton, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Rankin, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from one Mr. McFaddin and later discovered that part of this property was already owned by the defendant, Barton. However, it was found that at the time when McFaddin sold his rights to Rankin; he did not own any valid title to transfer as he had previously sold it to another party who then transferred it to Barton before Rankin's purchase took place. The court ruled in favor of Barton stating that since McFaddin didn't have any legal right or claim on said property at the time when he purportedly sold it to Rankin; therefore no legitimate transaction occurred between them regarding this piece of land which could affect or challenge Barton’s rightful ownership obtained through an earlier sale by McFaddin himself.

In the dissenting opinion for Rankin v. Barton, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Barton was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors in the original trial which should have led to a reversal of judgment. They contended that evidence presented by Rankin had been improperly excluded and this exclusion could have influenced the jury's verdict significantly. Additionally, they disagreed with how certain laws and precedents were interpreted and applied in this case, arguing these interpretations did not align with established legal principles or previous Supreme Court rulings on similar matters. Therefore, they felt justice would be better served if a new trial was ordered where all relevant evidence could be considered properly under correct legal standards.