In the 1894 case of Westmoreland v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Westmoreland, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who had obtained it through a patent issued by the State of Arkansas under authority granted to it by Congress for internal improvements. However, before this purchase was made, another person named Smith also bought and received patents for parts of this same property from both federal and state governments due to his military service during War with Mexico (1846-48). When Smith died without heirs or will, his lands were sold off to pay debts whereupon they were acquired by defendant - United States government. The court held that since there was no evidence showing any fraud or mistake in issuing these patents nor any legal proceedings initiated within reasonable time after their issuance challenging their validity; therefore they must be considered as conveying absolute title free from all claims except those based upon prior existing valid rights which did not exist here because neither party could show such right at time when respective patents were issued. Thus ruling favored US Government's claim over disputed lands against private citizen's claim based on subsequent purchase from original patentee.

In the dissenting opinion for Westmoreland v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of law and precedent. The justice believed that there was no legal basis to support a claim by a private individual against another private individual for damages resulting from alleged violations of international law or treaties between nations. He further contended that such claims should be addressed through diplomatic channels rather than in domestic courts, as they involve issues of foreign policy and international relations which are beyond the purview of judicial authority. Moreover, he expressed concern about potential negative implications this ruling could have on U.S.'s relationships with other countries if individuals were allowed to sue each other over perceived breaches of international laws or agreements.