In the case of Smith et al. v. Wilson et al., 1926, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California between two parties: one group claiming rights based on Spanish and Mexican land grants predating California's statehood, and another asserting rights under subsequent American laws. The court ruled that the original Spanish/Mexican grant was valid but had been extinguished by an act of Congress in 1851 which required all holders of such claims to present them for confirmation within two years - something not done by those now asserting these old claims. Therefore, their claim was invalid due to non-compliance with this requirement; they lost their right to assert it after failing to meet this deadline set by Congress.

The dissenting opinion in the case of SMITH et al. v. WILSON et al., 1926, was not specifically recorded or attributed to a particular justice. However, it can be inferred that those who dissented may have disagreed with the majority's interpretation of whether Smith and his associates had violated Wilson and others' Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying them equal protection under law due to racial discrimination. They might have argued for a narrower reading of the amendment or questioned its applicability in this specific context involving private business practices rather than state action directly infringing upon civil rights.