In the 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case Ward v. Joslin, the court examined a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma Territory. The plaintiff, Ward, claimed that he had purchased a parcel of land from an individual who had received it as part of an allotment under the General Allotment Act (also known as Dawes Act). However, this act prohibited transfer of title for such lands within 25 years of their initial assignment to prevent exploitation by non-Native American settlers or speculators. The defendant, Joslin argued that since the original sale was illegal due to these restrictions imposed by federal law; therefore any subsequent sales were also invalid and he should retain possession. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Joslin stating that even though there might have been some irregularities with how he obtained his title deed initially but because those issues weren't raised at trial they couldn't be considered on appeal now. Furthermore, they held that despite any potential illegality in its origin - once a patent has been issued and recorded it becomes conclusive evidence against all parties except United States itself.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ward v. Joslin argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting or fishing without obtaining a license was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizens in each state all privileges and immunities granted to citizens in other states. They contended that hunting and fishing are fundamental rights that should not be limited by residency status, as they are essential for survival and livelihoods. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that these activities could be regulated under police powers because it would lead to an unjustifiable infringement on personal liberties if extended too far.