In the Torrence v. Shedd case of 1891, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Kansas City. The plaintiff, Torrence, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had acquired it through preemption rights under federal law. However, the defendant, Shedd argued that he was entitled to this property because his predecessors-in-interest were given title by Congress for railroad purposes before any preemptive right attached to it. The court held in favor of Shedd and stated that when Congress grants lands for public uses such as railroads or schools without reservation or exception; these grants are superior to all other claims unless specifically provided otherwise by statute. Therefore, even if someone else later acquires preemptive rights over those lands under general laws like homestead acts etc., they cannot defeat previous specific congressional grants made for public use. This decision reinforced the principle that Congressional intent is paramount in determining land titles derived from federal legislation and clarified how conflicting interests between different types of claimants should be resolved.

In the dissenting opinion for Torrence v. Shedd, Justice Lamar argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of property law. He contended that the plaintiff had not been given adequate notice about changes in his property rights and therefore could not be expected to comply with them. Furthermore, he believed that the defendant did not have clear title to the land in question and thus should not have been able to bring a lawsuit against the plaintiff. In essence, Justice Lamar disagreed with how both procedural and substantive issues were handled by other justices in this case.