In the 1891 case of Tyler v. Savage, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Tyler, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, the defendant, Savage, argued that he was the rightful owner because he had bought it from someone else who also claimed to have preemptive rights over this same parcel of land. The court found in favor of Tyler and upheld his claim to ownership based on his purchase from an individual with valid preemption rights under federal law at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Tyler v. Savage, Justice Brewer argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of a key clause in the Pacific Railroad Acts. He contended that Congress intended to grant land to railroad companies not only for construction purposes but also as an incentive to attract private investment into these ventures. Therefore, he believed that any lands granted under this act should be exempt from preemption laws and other claims until they were sold by the company itself. In his view, allowing such claims would undermine Congressional intent and discourage future private investment in public infrastructure projects. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that previous Supreme Court decisions supported their position; instead arguing those cases were distinguishable or incorrectly decided.