In the case of Rio Arriba Land and Cattle Company v. United States (1896), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a land grant made by Mexico before it ceded territory to the U.S. under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo included certain disputed lands. The plaintiff, Rio Arriba Land and Cattle Company, claimed ownership based on this Mexican land grant while the U.S government argued that these lands were public domain as they were not specifically included in any grants. The court held that only those lands expressly mentioned in such grants would be recognized as private property; all other areas would be considered public domain belonging to the U.S government. This decision meant that many large tracts of land previously thought owned by individuals or companies like Rio Arriba became publicly owned instead. This ruling had significant implications for property rights in territories acquired from Mexico, setting a precedent for how similar disputes over ambiguous historical land grants should be resolved.

In the dissenting opinion for Rio Arriba Land and Cattle Company v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to deny the land grant claim was incorrect. He believed that there was sufficient evidence to prove that a valid Mexican land grant existed before 1848 when New Mexico became part of the U.S., which would have made it eligible for confirmation under American law. According to him, this included testimonies from old residents who had personal knowledge about its existence and use as well as documentary evidence such as tax records showing its recognition by local authorities. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of Spanish colonial law regarding what constituted a complete title; in his view, possession and use were enough even without formal paperwork because they reflected customary practices at that time.