In the case of Toltec Ranch Company v. Babcock, 1903, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in Arizona. The Toltec Ranch Company claimed that they had purchased the disputed lands from an individual who had received them as part of a grant from Mexico before it ceded territory to the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. However, George R. Babcock argued that he held rightful title to these lands through purchase from another party who obtained them via U.S public land laws after this treaty came into effect. The court ruled in favor of Babcock and against Toltec Ranch Company's claim on two grounds: firstly because there were doubts about whether Mexican law recognized such grants at all; secondly because even if such grants were valid under Mexican law, they would not be recognized by American courts unless confirmed by Congress or other competent authority - which was not done here. This decision underscored how property rights established under foreign jurisdictions could be invalidated when territories change hands between nations unless specifically upheld by domestic legislation or treaties.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Toltec Ranch Company v. Babcock argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply existing laws related to land grants. The dissenting justices believed that the original grant clearly intended for all lands, including those with valuable mineral deposits, to be included within its boundaries. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a key clause in an 1866 act which they felt should have been read as excluding only lode mines from private ownership, not all minerals or ores. Furthermore, they contended that subsequent legislation had confirmed this interpretation by explicitly recognizing private rights over such resources on granted lands. Therefore, according to them, Babcock should have retained his mining rights under both Spanish law and U.S federal law.