In the case of Webster v. Luther, a dispute arose over land ownership in Rhode Island that had been previously granted to Roger Williams by King Charles II. The plaintiffs, who were descendants of the original grantees, claimed that they held rightful title to the property under an ancient deed dating back to 1649 and sought ejectment against defendants occupying said lands. However, it was found that this claim could not be upheld as there was no evidence showing continuous possession or occupation for any period after 1709 until around 1860 when one plaintiff began paying taxes on some parts of these lands. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants stating that even if such a grant existed and could still be enforced today (which is doubtful), proof would need to show uninterrupted possession or clear acts demonstrating ownership rights throughout all intervening years since its issuance - something which plaintiffs failed to provide. Therefore, their claim based solely upon an old unproven deed without supporting facts establishing continued control over these properties cannot succeed.

In the dissenting opinion for Webster v. Luther, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Rhode Island law which disenfranchised certain citizens and limited voting rights to only property owners or their eldest sons was fundamentally flawed. The dissenting justices contended that this ruling contradicted the principles of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. They believed that all adult male citizens should have an equal right to vote regardless of their property ownership status, and they saw no valid reason why these individuals should be excluded from participating in elections simply because they did not own land or were not first-born sons. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "privileges" and "immunities," arguing instead for a broader understanding that would encompass basic democratic rights such as suffrage.