In the United States v. Beebe case in 1900, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land patents issued by the U.S. government. The defendant, Mr. Beebe, had purchased lands from individuals who had received them through federal land grants under an act of Congress passed in 1841 that aimed to encourage settlement and development of public lands in Florida. However, it was later discovered that these lands were not eligible for such grants as they were part of a reservation set aside for Seminole Indians at the time when those patents were issued. The government sued to annul these patents but faced difficulties due to statutes of limitations and legal presumptions favoring patent holders after several years have passed since issuance. The Supreme Court held that while generally there is a presumption of validity attached to government-issued land patents after many years have elapsed since their issuance; this presumption can be rebutted with evidence showing fraud or mistake at the time when those titles were granted. Therefore, despite any statute limitation issues or long-standing possession by innocent purchasers like Mr.Beebe; if it's proven that original titleholders obtained their rights wrongfully (through fraud or error), then subsequent buyers cannot claim good faith protection against invalidation actions brought by true owners - which here was found to be U.S Government.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Beebe, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a presidential pardon to completely absolve an individual of all legal consequences related to their crime was not in line with established precedent or constitutional interpretation. He believed that while a pardon could forgive punishment for a crime, it should not erase all civil liabilities associated with illegal actions. In this case, he disagreed with the majority's ruling which allowed Beebe to regain property seized by the government due to his criminal activities simply because he had been pardoned by President Grant. According to Justice Harlan, such an interpretation would give excessive power and discretion over law enforcement matters into hands of executive branch and undermine judicial authority.