In Whitcomb v. Smithson (1899), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The case involved two parties, Whitcomb and Smithson, who both claimed rights to a piece of property in Washington state based on different federal laws. Whitcomb's claim was based on an 1866 law that granted railroad companies the right to acquire public lands for construction purposes while Smithson's claim was grounded in the Homestead Act of 1862 which allowed individuals to apply for federal land grants. The court ruled in favor of Smithson, stating that his homesteading rights took precedence over any potential claims by railroad companies under the 1866 law. The decision clarified that individual settlers' rights were paramount when it came to acquiring public lands from the government and could not be superseded by corporate interests.

The dissenting opinion in the case of WHITCOMB v. SMITHSON argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Whitcomb liable for Smithson's losses, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Whitcomb had acted negligently or with fraudulent intent when he advised Smithson on his investments. They contended that it is not enough to show poor judgment or error; rather, clear proof of negligence or fraud must be established before liability can be assigned. In their view, this standard had not been met and thus they disagreed with the majority’s decision.