In the United States v. Thomas case of 1904, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning land ownership and property rights. The defendant, Mr. Thomas, was accused by the U.S government of illegally occupying public lands in California that were not subject to private acquisition under existing laws at that time. He argued his right to occupy based on an earlier Mexican grant which he claimed had been confirmed by Congress through legislation passed in 1860 and subsequently patented by President Lincoln's administration in 1866. The court held that while there may have been errors or irregularities involved with how this patent was issued, it did not invalidate its legal effect once delivered and recorded unless declared void by a competent court upon proper proceedings instituted directly for that purpose; hence it could not be collaterally attacked as attempted here. Therefore, despite any potential procedural issues surrounding the original issuance of this patent - including whether or not such lands should have ever been made available for private acquisition - since no direct action had previously been taken to declare this specific patent void prior to Mr.Thomas' occupation thereof; his claim stood valid against these charges brought forth by the U.S government.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Thomas, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on foreign-built yachts violated principles of international law and comity. He contended that under these principles, property within a country should be subject only to taxation by its own government unless it is used in commerce or business within another nation. In this case, he believed the yacht was not being used commercially but rather for personal use and thus should not be subjected to U.S taxes. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies with previous court rulings which exempted certain types of property from taxation based on their location or use at specific times. Therefore, according to Justice Brewer’s perspective, taxing such properties would lead to an unjust double-taxation scenario where both countries could claim rights over the same revenue source.