In the case of Roby v. Colehour and Another, 1892, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership. The plaintiff, Roby, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had acquired it through a tax sale. However, the defendants argued that they were rightful owners because they held original title to the property before it was sold for unpaid taxes. They contended that their failure to pay taxes was due to an error in assessment and thus should not have resulted in loss of their property rights. The court sided with Colehour and another defendant by ruling against Roby's claim based on several legal principles related to real estate law at that time: firstly; if there is any irregularity or illegality in tax proceedings resulting in sale of lands for delinquent taxes which would render such sales voidable only (not absolutely void), then this can be taken advantage by owner alone; secondly; when deed upon its face shows no authority in grantor to convey land described therein except as derived from tax-sale proceedings which are illegal or irregular so as only make them voidable at election of owner whose title has been divested thereby - such deed does not operate even prima facie evidence against him.

In the dissenting opinion for Roby v. Colehour, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Roby was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors in the original trial which should have led to a reversal of the judgment. They pointed out several instances where evidence presented by Roby had been improperly excluded and emphasized that these exclusions could have significantly impacted jury deliberations and ultimately, their verdict. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain laws were interpreted in this case, arguing instead for an interpretation more favorable to Roby's position. Overall, they felt strongly enough about these issues to publicly disagree with their colleagues' decision.