In the case of Rouse v. Letcher, 1894, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Rouse, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, defendant Letcher argued that he held rightful claim to the property as a result of his status as an assignee for railroad company bonds issued by Leavenworth County and backed by lands granted to railroads by Congress. The court ruled in favor of Letcher stating that while there were irregularities in how Leavenworth County handled its bond issuance process and subsequent assignment of lands to pay off those bonds; these did not invalidate Letcher's claim because they occurred after his acquisition of said bonds. Therefore, any issues regarding legality or fairness should be addressed between original parties involved i.e., county officials and bondholders rather than affecting third party purchasers like him.

In the dissenting opinion for Rouse v. Letcher, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kentucky law prohibiting non-residents from bringing lawsuits in state courts was unconstitutional. He contended that this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which guarantees citizens of each state equal access to all privileges and immunities in every other state. According to him, one such privilege is access to courts for enforcement of legal rights; therefore, denying non-residents this right simply because they do not reside within the state contradicts constitutional principles. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that states have absolute control over their court systems without federal interference or oversight under any circumstances.