The Saltonstall v. Wiebusch case in 1894 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of certain lands in California. The plaintiff, Saltonstall, claimed that he had purchased the land from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Wiebusch & Hilgard (a company), argued that they held a mortgage on the property which predated Saltonstall's purchase and thus took precedence over his claim. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wiebusch & Hilgard stating that their mortgage did indeed take priority over any subsequent claims to ownership made by Saltonstall as per Section 1214 of California’s Civil Code which states "Every conveyance of real property...is void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for value". This ruling established an important precedent regarding how mortgages are treated when it comes to determining property rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Saltonstall v. Wiebusch, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling dismissing an appeal on jurisdictional grounds was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the case should have been heard by the Supreme Court because it involved significant federal questions related to interstate commerce and contract law. They contended that these issues were of such importance and complexity that they warranted review by the highest court in order to ensure uniformity in their interpretation across all states. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that there was no controversy between parties from different states, arguing instead that this requirement had indeed been met since one party resided outside California where suit was brought against him for non-payment of debt owed under a contract executed within another state (New York). Therefore, according to them, both diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction existed which made dismissal inappropriate.