In the 1902 U.S. Supreme Court case Waggoner v. Flack, the court examined a dispute over land ownership in Texas between two parties: The Waggoners and Mr. Flack. The Waggoners claimed that they had inherited the land from their father, while Mr. Flack argued he had purchased it legally from another party who held title to it at that time. The main issue was whether or not an earlier ruling by a lower court (which favored Mr. Flack) should be upheld despite potential errors in its proceedings - specifically regarding jury instructions about how to interpret certain evidence related to property boundaries. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Waggoners, stating that there were indeed significant errors made during trial which could have influenced its outcome unfairly against them; therefore, they ordered for a new trial to take place with corrected procedures.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Waggoner v. Flack argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that a landowner could not be held liable for damages caused by his tenant's livestock straying onto another person's property, was incorrect. The dissent contended that this interpretation contradicted established principles of common law and unjustly absolved landlords from any responsibility for their tenants' actions. It further asserted that such an approach would encourage negligence on part of landlords and undermine public safety as it pertains to control over potentially harmful animals. Therefore, according to the dissenting justices, liability should extend beyond mere possession or direct control over animals; owners who derive benefit from their use must also bear some degree of responsibility for any harm they cause.