In the case of Wilson v. Kiesel in 1896, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Wilson, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, before this person could receive official title to the land from the government, they sold it to Wilson. Later on, another individual named Kiesel also claimed ownership of this same parcel of land by virtue of having won it in a lottery conducted by Salt Lake City authorities after they received title from the federal government. The court ruled against Wilson and upheld Kiesel's claim to the property because at no point did his predecessor-in-interest have legal title or right to conveyance when selling him their interest in said property; therefore any such sale was void ab initio (from inception). This ruling reaffirmed that one cannot transfer more rights than they possess themselves - if you don't own something outrightly (or legally), then you can't sell or otherwise transfer those nonexistent rights onto someone else.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Wilson v. Kiesel argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Utah law prohibiting polygamy was misguided and unconstitutional. The dissenters believed that this ruling infringed upon individual liberties, particularly religious freedom, as polygamy was practiced by certain religious groups such as Mormons at the time. They contended that while states have broad powers to regulate marriage, these powers should not extend to criminalizing consensual adult relationships based on moral disapproval alone. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how laws regulating personal relationships were applied across different states and called for greater uniformity in their enforcement. Ultimately, they felt that the court had overstepped its bounds by allowing state legislatures too much power over private matters of conscience and belief.