In the United States v. Bashaw case of 1893, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving land patents and property rights. The dispute arose when Mr. Bashaw claimed ownership of certain lands in Kansas under a patent issued by the U.S government to railroad companies as part of an incentive program for railway construction across America's frontier territories during mid-19th century. However, these lands were already occupied by settlers who had purchased them from speculators before they were officially patented to railroads. The court held that even though there was no formal transfer or conveyance document between the railroad company and Mr. Bashaw, his claim was valid because he had paid valuable consideration for it and acted in good faith without knowledge about any potential defects with its title. Furthermore, it stated that once a patent has been issued by the government (in this case to railroads), all prior claims against such property are nullified unless they have been preserved through legal proceedings before issuance of said patent. Therefore, despite having bought their properties first from speculators who didn't legally own them yet at time of sale; settlers' claims were invalidated due to lack of proper legal action taken beforehand against impending railroad patents which effectively superseded their purchases.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Bashaw case argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important aspects of maritime law and international jurisdiction. The dissenting justices believed that a ship, while on high seas, is considered part of its home country's territory for legal purposes. Therefore, they contended that U.S laws should apply even when an American vessel is outside America’s territorial waters. They disagreed with the majority view which held that crimes committed aboard such vessels were not prosecutable under U.S law unless explicitly stated by Congress. This interpretation, according to them, could potentially create safe havens for criminals at sea and undermine national sovereignty over its own ships abroad.