In the case of Walker v. New Mexico and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 1896, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land grants in New Mexico. The plaintiff, Walker, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from individuals who received them as part of a grant by Congress to aid in building railroads. However, these individuals sold their rights before they were patented or officially granted by the government. The defendant railroad company argued that it was entitled to these lands under its own congressional grant for constructing railways across Western territories. The court held that although both parties' claims originated from Congressional land grants designed to encourage railway construction, only those with actual patents could claim ownership over such lands. Since Walker's predecessors-in-interest did not have any patent when they transferred their interest to him; his claim was invalid against the railroad company which later obtained a patent for same property under its own grant. This decision underscored two key principles: first is priority rule - "first in time is first in right", and secondly - importance of obtaining an official patent while dealing with public properties.

The dissenting opinion in the Walker v. New Mexico and Southern Pacific Railroad Company case argued that the court majority had incorrectly interpreted the law regarding liability for accidents on railroad property. The dissent emphasized that railroads, as common carriers, have a heightened duty of care towards passengers but not necessarily to trespassers or licensees such as Walker. They contended that while it was unfortunate that Walker suffered injuries due to an open switch on the tracks, he was there without permission and thus should bear some responsibility for his own safety. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view about foreseeability of harm from leaving switches unlocked; arguing instead this would impose an unreasonable burden on railroads to anticipate all potential misuses of their equipment by unauthorized persons. Therefore, according to them, holding railroads liable under such circumstances could set a dangerous precedent affecting their operations and financial stability.