In the United States v. Sayward case of 1895, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute concerning land ownership in Washington state. The defendant, Sayward, claimed to own certain lands under an Act of Congress passed in 1853 that granted property rights to settlers who had lived on and improved public lands for four consecutive years prior to surveying by government officials. However, the U.S. government argued that it still owned these lands because they were not surveyed until after this four-year period had ended. The court sided with Sayward, stating that he met all conditions set forth by the Act of Congress and was therefore entitled to his claim. It held that while official surveys are important for determining boundaries and settling disputes over public land claims, they do not affect pre-existing rights established by settlement and improvement before such surveys take place. This ruling affirmed settlers' rights against later governmental actions or regulations which might otherwise invalidate their claims made under previous laws granting them property rights.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Sayward case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Sayward guilty of illegally cutting timber on government land, was incorrect. The dissent pointed out that there were no clear boundaries marking where public lands ended and private property began. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to expect individuals like Sayward to know with certainty whether they were trespassing or not when harvesting timber. Furthermore, the dissent highlighted inconsistencies in how laws regarding public lands had been applied historically by different courts and jurisdictions across the country; this lack of uniformity further complicated matters for ordinary citizens trying to abide by these laws. Thus, according to the dissenters' view, punishing someone for unknowingly violating such unclear regulations was unjust.