In the United States v. Ferris case of 1923, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning property rights and taxation. The defendant, Ferris, was an owner of oil-producing properties in Oklahoma which he leased to various companies for operation. He received royalties from these leases based on a percentage of the oil produced. However, when it came to paying income tax for 1917 under Revenue Act (1916), Ferris argued that his royalty payments should be considered as capital assets rather than regular income because they were derived from depletion of oil wells - essentially non-renewable resources. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that such royalties are taxable as gross income regardless if they arise from exhaustion/depletion of capital assets like mineral deposits or not. The court held that Congress intended to tax all gain derived by individuals except where specifically exempted by law; thus ruling against Mr.Ferris' claim and affirming lower courts’ decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ferris, Justice McReynolds expressed his disagreement with the majority's interpretation of the law and its application to this case. He argued that Ferris had not committed any crime under existing laws because he did not have actual possession or control over contraband alcohol at the time of his arrest. According to Justice McReynolds, mere knowledge or suspicion about illegal activities is insufficient grounds for conviction; there must be concrete evidence showing direct involvement in illicit acts. Furthermore, he contended that holding individuals accountable for crimes they might commit in future contradicts fundamental principles of justice and due process rights enshrined in U.S Constitution. In essence, Justice McReynolds believed that a person should only be convicted based on their actions rather than intentions or potentialities.