In the case of White v. Van Horn in 1894, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and mineral rights. The plaintiff, White, claimed that he had purchased mining property from Van Horn but later discovered that there were existing liens on it which hadn't been disclosed at the time of sale. He sought to have his purchase declared void due to this non-disclosure. However, the court ruled against him stating that even though there was no explicit disclosure about these liens by Van Horn during their transaction; as per law (Civil Code California), every grant is presumed to convey all rights attached unless explicitly stated otherwise in writing or implied by local customs or previous dealings between parties involved. Therefore, since nothing contrary was mentioned in their agreement nor any evidence provided for such an exception being customary or previously agreed upon between them; it was assumed that all rights including those under lien were transferred to White when he bought this property.

In the dissenting opinion for White v. Van Horn, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of a creditor who had seized property from an insolvent debtor was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this violated the rights of other creditors by allowing one creditor to take more than their fair share at the expense of others. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of bankruptcy law, arguing that it should be applied uniformly and fairly to all parties involved rather than favoring certain individuals or entities over others. Furthermore, they contended that upholding such practices would undermine public confidence in the legal system and could potentially lead to abuses by unscrupulous creditors seeking to exploit vulnerable debtors.