In the 1912 case of Svor v. Morris, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Minnesota. The plaintiff, Svor, claimed that he had purchased land from a man named Nelson who had acquired it through preemption rights (rights to settle on and purchase public lands before they are offered for sale publicly). However, the defendant, Morris argued that Nelson's claim was invalid because he did not fulfill residency requirements under preemption laws. The lower court ruled in favor of Morris but this decision was reversed by the state supreme court which held that even if there were irregularities in Nelson’s claim process these would not affect his title once patent issued. The U.S Supreme Court affirmed this judgment stating that after five years from date of issue any contest against validity of patents is barred unless fraud can be shown - something which wasn't alleged here. Therefore despite potential issues with original acquisition process; as long as no fraudulent activity could be proven then subsequent owners like Svor could rely on their titles being secure.

In the dissenting opinion for SVOR v. MORRIS, 1912, it was argued that the majority ruling failed to properly consider and apply principles of equity in their decision. The dissenting justices believed that Morris had a legitimate claim to the land in question due to his long-term occupancy and improvements made on it. They contended that Svor's legal title should not automatically supersede Morris' equitable rights, especially considering Svor's alleged fraudulent behavior during acquisition of said title. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for disregarding established precedent which typically favors those who have been occupying and improving a property over mere legal owners who have neglected or abandoned it. In essence, they felt justice would be better served by recognizing Morris' substantial investments into the property rather than strictly adhering to formalistic rules about land ownership.