In the Walker v. Seeberger case of 1892, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Chicago. The plaintiff, Walker, claimed that he had purchased lots from the government which were part of Fort Dearborn Addition to Chicago and later discovered they were already owned by Seeberger. He filed suit to have his title confirmed or alternatively for compensation for improvements made on the property under mistaken belief of ownership. However, it was found that there was an error in original surveys used by both parties due to inaccurate measurements taken during initial surveying process back in 1839 causing confusion about exact boundaries and lot numbers within this area. The court held that despite these errors, subsequent official maps and documents corrected them over time establishing accurate descriptions recognized by local authorities and residents alike thereby creating a legal precedent known as 'acquiescence'. This meant even though technically incorrect according to original flawed surveys; long-standing acceptance effectively validated these corrections legally. Therefore, since Seeberger's claim relied upon those accepted revisions while Walker's did not; it was deemed superior regardless of any previous mistakes made during early surveying stages thus ruling against Walker who failed either confirm his title or receive compensation for improvements.

In the dissenting opinion for Walker v. Seeberger, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on imported woolen goods based on their value before they were dyed and finished in another country contradicted previous court rulings. The dissenting justices believed that this interpretation of the tariff laws unfairly penalized importers who chose to have their goods processed abroad rather than domestically. They pointed out that under this ruling, two identical pieces of cloth would be taxed differently depending on where they were dyed and finished - one in America after importation or one abroad before importation - even though both processes added equal value to the product. This, according to them, violated principles of fairness and equality inherent in taxation law as well as contradicting established legal precedent which stated that duties should be assessed based on an item’s condition when it arrives at American ports.