The U.S. Supreme Court case Marchie Tiger v. Western Investment Company in 1910 revolved around the issue of land ownership and sale rights, specifically involving Native American lands. Marchie Tiger was a full-blooded Creek Indian who sold his inherited allotment of tribal land to the Western Investment Company, which he later regretted and sought to nullify on grounds that it violated federal law prohibiting such sales without presidential approval. The court ruled against Tiger, stating that while there were indeed laws protecting certain types of tribal property from being sold without explicit permission from the President, these did not apply to inheritances like Tiger's allotment - only those acquired through treaties or agreements with tribes directly by the government fell under this protection. Therefore, since no law had been broken in their transaction, Western Investment Company retained rightful ownership over the disputed land.

In the dissenting opinion for Marchie Tiger v. Western Investment Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and respect tribal sovereignty. The dissenting justices believed that the Creek Nation had a right to manage its own property and affairs without interference from non-tribal entities or individuals. They contended that by allowing Western Investment Company to acquire land within Creek territory, despite explicit laws prohibiting such transactions, undermined this principle of tribal self-governance. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant treaties and legislation as implicitly permitting these types of land transfers under certain conditions; instead arguing that any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of protecting tribal rights and interests. In their view, upholding this transaction set a dangerous precedent which could potentially open up Native American lands to exploitation by outside parties.