In the case of Webster Coal and Coke Company v. Cassatt (1907), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, Webster Coal and Coke Company, claimed that they had purchased mineral rights to certain lands from their original owners before those lands were sold to the defendant, A.J. Cassatt & Co., who was unaware of this prior transaction when purchasing the property. The lower court ruled in favor of Cassatt on grounds that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice - meaning he bought it in good faith without knowledge of any previous claims or interests on it. However, upon appeal by Webster Coal and Coke Company, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that under Pennsylvania law at that time (which followed "race-notice" statute), even if a subsequent buyer purchases property in good faith without knowing about an earlier sale or interest on it; if such prior claim is recorded first then it takes precedence over later ones regardless of whether latter purchasers knew about them or not. Therefore, since Webster had properly recorded its purchase before Cassett's acquisition took place; despite his lack of awareness regarding this fact during his own purchase process - according to race-notice rule applied by state law back then - priority should be given to former's claim thus making him rightful owner instead.

In the dissenting opinion for Webster Coal and Coke Company v. Cassatt, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Webster Coal and Coke Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant procedural errors in how the case had been handled at trial, which should have resulted in a reversal of the judgment. They also disagreed with the interpretation of certain laws by both lower courts and their fellow Supreme Court Justices, arguing these interpretations unfairly disadvantaged Webster Coal and Coke Company. Furthermore, they felt that some evidence presented during trial had been improperly admitted or weighed too heavily in making decisions about liability and damages. Overall, they contended that justice had not been served due to these issues.