The Southern Pacific Company v. Seley case in 1893 revolved around a dispute over land ownership. The Southern Pacific Railroad claimed that it had been granted certain lands by the U.S. government under an act of Congress from July 27, 1866, which was intended to aid in the construction of railroads from Oregon to California. However, Seley contested this claim on the grounds that he had purchased his plot before any such grant was made and therefore held rightful title to it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Seley, stating that at the time when he bought his property there were no reservations or exceptions made for railroad companies within these public lands sales; thus they could not be applied retroactively after purchase. Furthermore, even if there were such provisions included later on (as argued by Southern Pacific), they would still have needed explicit mention during sale transactions - something which did not occur here. This decision reinforced private property rights against potential encroachments by corporations claiming federal privileges and set important precedents regarding interpretation of Congressional acts related to land grants.

In the dissenting opinion for Southern Pacific Company v. Seley, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Seley was incorrect. He contended that there were significant errors made during trial which should have resulted in a reversal of judgment. Specifically, he pointed out that the jury was improperly instructed on how to assess damages and this could have influenced their decision unfairly against Southern Pacific Company. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of California law regarding liability for negligence, arguing it did not align with established legal principles or precedent cases from other jurisdictions. In his view, these issues warranted a new trial rather than affirming an erroneous verdict.