In the case of Thorp v. Bonnifield, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in Alaska following the discovery of gold on said property. The plaintiff, Thorp, had purchased mining rights to this land from an Alaskan native named Kowee who claimed he owned it by virtue of possession and use for many years prior to its purchase by Thorp. However, Bonnifield also laid claim to this same piece of land under a federal law that allowed citizens to stake claims on unoccupied public lands for mining purposes. The central issue before the court was whether or not Kowee's long-term use and occupation gave him valid title over these lands according to existing laws at that time which did not recognize Native American property rights unless they were formally granted through treaties or statutes. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bonnifield stating that while Kowee may have occupied and used these lands for many years as per his cultural practices; such usage did not confer legal ownership under U.S law since there were no formal treaties or statutes recognizing his claim.

In the dissenting opinion for Thorp v. Bonnifield, the justice argued that the majority misinterpreted and incorrectly applied existing laws regarding land ownership and transfer. The dissenting justice believed that Mr. Thorp had a valid claim to his property based on prior possession and improvements made to it, despite not having formal documentation of ownership at the time of dispute. He also disagreed with how much weight was given to Mr. Bonnifield's subsequent purchase from another party who may or may not have held legitimate title themselves, arguing this should not automatically invalidate Thorp's earlier claims without further investigation into both parties' actions and intentions concerning this property over time.