In the United States v. Page case of 1890, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in California. The defendant, Thomas J. Page, claimed that he had purchased land from Mexican citizens who were granted this property by their government before California became part of the U.S., and therefore his claim was protected under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. However, it was found that these Mexican citizens never legally owned this property as they did not fulfill conditions set by their own government to maintain possession - specifically residing on and cultivating said lands for one year following grant issuance - thus invalidating any subsequent sale to Mr. Page. The court concluded that because original grantees failed to meet these requirements prior to American acquisition of California territory in 1848 (as per Treaty), such grants could not be recognized or validated under American law post-cession; hence Mr.Page's claim lacked legal basis. This decision underscored how international treaties can impact domestic property rights while also highlighting importance of meeting all conditions stipulated within a grant or contract for maintaining valid claims over properties.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Page, 1890, it was argued that the government did not have a right to seize property without due process of law. The dissenting justices believed that this principle should apply even in cases where the property is being used for illegal purposes. They contended that while Congress has broad powers to regulate commerce and suppress lotteries, these powers do not extend to seizing private property without judicial proceedings. Furthermore, they maintained that such seizures violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures as well as rights to due process under law. In their view, allowing such actions would set a dangerous precedent undermining individual rights and liberties protected by the Constitution.