In the case of Waskey v. Hammer in 1911, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights in Alaska. The plaintiff, John Waskey, argued that he had been unlawfully dispossessed from his property by defendant Peter Hammer. However, the court found that Waskey did not have legal title to the disputed property at any point during or after its alleged dispossession. Furthermore, it was determined that even if he had held such title previously, it would have been void due to noncompliance with federal laws governing mineral lands when he attempted to acquire it through purchase from an individual who himself did not hold valid title under said laws. Therefore, since neither party could establish clear legal ownership of the contested land based on existing law and evidence presented before them; they dismissed both claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Waskey v. Hammer, Justice Harlan argued that the case should not have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. He believed that the Supreme Court had a duty to hear cases involving federal questions, even if they originated from territorial courts like Alaska's. In his view, dismissing this case undermined Congress' intent in establishing appellate review of territorial decisions and could potentially deprive litigants of their right to appeal. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s interpretation of Section 10 of Judiciary Act which was used as basis for dismissal; instead arguing it applied only to states and not territories such as Alaska where this dispute arose from.