In the United States v. Hutchins case in 1893, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The appellant, Mr. Hutchins, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, the U.S government argued that this sale was invalid because at the time of purchase by Mr. Hutchins' predecessor-in-interest (the person from whom he bought), there were still Native American tribes living on and using this land for hunting and fishing purposes which made it ineligible for preemption. The court ruled in favor of the U.S government stating that lands reserved for Indian occupancy are excluded from settlement or acquisition until such reservation has been extinguished either by treaty between sovereigns or some legislative act authorizing its occupation or purchase; thus making any claim to preemptive right void ab initio (from inception). Therefore, even though Mr.Hutchins may have acted in good faith when purchasing his property believing it to be legally available for sale - due to previous owner's misrepresentation - his title was deemed invalid as per existing laws governing public lands and their disposition.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Hutchins, the justice argued that a person should not be held liable for taxes on property they do not own or possess. The case involved a man who had been assessed and taxed for certain shares of stock he did not actually own at the time of assessment. The majority ruled in favor of the government, stating that it was reasonable to assume he still owned them based on past ownership records. However, according to this dissenting view, such an assumption is unjust as it places undue burden on individuals to prove their non-ownership every year lest they be unfairly taxed. This perspective emphasizes strict adherence to principles of fairness and accuracy in tax law enforcement over administrative convenience.