In the United States v. Fitch case of 1895, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, the U.S government, claimed that certain lands were part of public domain and thus belonged to them while defendant Fitch asserted his title based on Mexican law prior to California's admission into Union as a state. The court ruled in favor of Fitch stating that when California was admitted into Union under Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following Mexican-American War, it agreed to respect all existing property rights - including those established under Mexican rule. Therefore, if Fitch could prove his claim originated from valid grants made by Mexico before American acquisition then he had rightful ownership over disputed lands despite any subsequent surveys or classifications done by US authorities declaring them as public lands.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Fitch, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. He contended that a contract should not be invalidated simply because it involved government property or officials; rather, its legality should depend on whether it was made in good faith and without fraud or collusion. Furthermore, he believed that if a party had fulfilled their part of an agreement and received payment from another party who knew they were benefiting from this fulfillment, then this second party could not later refuse to uphold their end of the bargain by claiming ignorance about some aspect of the first party's performance. In other words, according to Justice Brewer’s perspective, since Fitch had performed his services under his contract with good faith belief in its validity and since government officials knowingly accepted these services without objection at time of delivery - even though they might have been aware there may be potential legal issues surrounding such contracts - those officials (and thus U.S Government) should still be held accountable for fulfilling their contractual obligations towards Fitch.