In the 1896 case of Tindal v. Wesley, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in South Carolina. The plaintiff, Tindal, claimed that he had purchased the property from its rightful owners and was therefore entitled to possession. However, the defendant, Wesley argued that he held a valid title to this property through inheritance from his father who had been granted it by Congress for service in Revolutionary War. The lower court sided with Wesley but on appeal; the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating there were errors made during trial proceedings which affected judgment outcome. The main issue was whether or not an Act of Congress could grant land titles without explicitly naming recipients or their heirs as beneficiaries - something which hadn't happened when granting lands to veterans like Wesley's father. In addition to this legal question about interpretation of Congressional Acts regarding land grants; another key point raised during arguments concerned evidentiary rules related specifically towards proving chain-of-title claims within real estate transactions. Ultimately though after reviewing all evidence presented before them including various deeds and other documents pertaining directly towards disputed parcel's history – Justices concluded unanimously (9-0) favoring Tindal because they found no clear proof supporting defendant’s claim about inheriting said property via any federal legislation enacted previously by US lawmakers.

In the dissenting opinion for Tindal v. Wesley, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a South Carolina law prohibiting interracial marriage violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that this law was discriminatory in nature as it only applied to African Americans who wished to marry white individuals but did not apply vice versa. They also contended that such laws were an infringement on individual liberties protected by due process, specifically one's right to marry whomever they choose regardless of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s assertion that these laws were necessary for maintaining peace and order within society; instead arguing they served no legitimate purpose other than promoting racial discrimination and prejudice.