In the Seeburger v. Schlesinger case of 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Seeburger, was an heir to a piece of land in California that had been purchased by his father from Mexico before California became part of the United States. After his father's death, he claimed ownership over this land but faced opposition from Schlesinger who also laid claim to it based on a grant made by Mexican authorities after California became part of US territory. The court held that under international law and treaty obligations between Mexico and the United States at that time (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo), any grants or sales made by Mexico concerning lands within territories ceded to America were invalid unless they had been confirmed prior to cession. Since Schlesinger’s claim was based on such an unconfirmed grant, it was deemed void while Seeburger’s inherited right stood valid as it predated American sovereignty over these territories. This ruling affirmed respect for existing property rights during territorial transitions between nations while clarifying how such rights should be determined when conflicting claims arise due to subsequent transactions conducted under different sovereigns.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Seeberger v. Schlesinger argued that the majority's interpretation of patent law was incorrect and overly restrictive. The dissenters believed that the invention at issue, a new method for making cheese, should be eligible for patent protection because it represented a novel and useful process. They contended that denying this type of innovation from being patented would stifle creativity and progress in various industries where improvements are often made through changes to methods or processes rather than physical inventions. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that granting such patents could lead to monopolies over common knowledge or natural phenomena; instead, they asserted these concerns were already addressed by existing requirements for novelty and non-obviousness within patent law itself.