In the case of Stewart v. McHarry, a dispute arose over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Stewart, claimed that he had purchased the property from a man named Sutter who allegedly obtained it through an old Mexican land grant before California became part of the United States. However, there was no record or evidence to support this claim and thus his title was deemed invalid by lower courts. Stewart appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that even if Sutter's original title was questionable, he (Stewart) should still be considered as having valid rights due to "adverse possession," meaning he had openly occupied and used the land for many years without any legal challenge. The Supreme Court disagreed with Stewart’s argument stating that adverse possession could not apply because there were no specific boundaries defined for what he claimed as his property; hence it wasn't clear exactly what area he supposedly possessed adversely. Furthermore, they noted that under U.S law at that time (following Mexico's cession of California), all unclaimed or disputed lands automatically became federal government property until their status could be legally determined otherwise.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Stewart v. McHarry argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider and apply relevant legal principles. The dissent pointed out that a contract for sale is not complete until both parties have agreed on all essential terms, including price and payment method. In this case, there was no evidence showing agreement between the parties on these crucial points; thus, according to the dissenting justices, there should be no legally binding contract. Furthermore, they contended that even if an agreement had been reached regarding price and payment method, such an arrangement would still need to be executed within a reasonable time frame in order for it to remain valid. They believed that since several years had passed without any action taken towards fulfilling this alleged contract by either party involved - which indicates lack of intent or ability from one or both sides - then it should naturally become void due to lapse of time. Finally, they expressed concern over potential negative implications their colleagues' ruling could have on future cases involving similar circumstances: namely encouraging litigation based upon vague verbal agreements made long ago with little concrete proof backing them up – something contrary to sound judicial practice as per their view.