In the case of Van Winkle v. Crowell, 1892, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a lower court had jurisdiction over a dispute involving land in Tennessee. The plaintiff, Van Winkle, claimed that he purchased the land from Crowell and later discovered that it was encumbered by liens not disclosed at the time of sale. He sought to have his purchase money returned and filed suit in federal court due to diversity of citizenship between himself (a citizen of New York) and defendant Crowell (a citizen of Tennessee). However, because part of his claim involved an equitable title to real estate located within state boundaries - which under established legal principles is subject exclusively to local law - there were questions about whether this could be heard in federal court or if it should be remanded back down for adjudication by state courts. Ultimately, after reviewing precedents on similar issues including cases like Maxwell Land-Grant Case among others; SCOTUS held that Federal Courts do indeed possess concurrent jurisdiction with State Courts even when dealing with such matters related directly or indirectly towards real property rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Van Winkle v. Crowell argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Crowell on grounds that he had not violated any laws by refusing to pay for goods received from Van Winkle, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were indeed legal obligations binding Crowell to make payment for these goods and services rendered by Van Winkle. They believed this obligation existed regardless of whether or not an explicit contract between both parties was present at the time when these transactions took place. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes and precedents related to contractual law and debt collection practices as applied within this particular context.