In the case of Texas Land and Cattle Company v. Scott in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership. The Texas Land and Cattle Company had purchased land from an individual who claimed to have received it as part of a Mexican grant before Texas became a state. However, another party named Scott also laid claim to this same piece of property based on his purchase from the State of Texas itself after it had become part of the United States. The court ruled in favor of Scott, stating that when Texas joined the Union, all unappropriated lands became public domain under control by the state government unless there were valid grants made prior to annexation which could be proven beyond doubt. In this case, no such proof existed for claims made by previous owners whose rights were bought by The Texas Land and Cattle Company; therefore their claim was invalid against that held by Mr.Scott.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Texas Land and Cattle Company v. Scott argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant state law. The dissent believed that under Texas law, a mortgagee has an absolute right to possession of mortgaged property upon default by the mortgagor, regardless of whether or not foreclosure proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, they contended that when Scott defaulted on his loan from Texas Land and Cattle Company, he forfeited his right to possess the cattle in question even though no foreclosure had taken place yet. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "possession," arguing that physical control over property is not necessary for legal possession; rather, one can legally possess something simply by having a rightful claim to it based on valid legal title or interest.