In the 1916 case of Adamson v. Gilliland, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a land contract in Oklahoma that had been made prior to statehood and which included an oil and gas lease was valid under federal law. The original agreement stipulated that if oil or gas were found on the property, one-eighth of it would be reserved for lessor (Adamson). After statehood, however, new owner Gilliland argued this provision was invalid as it violated a federal statute prohibiting reservation of more than one-sixteenth of mineral production for lessors. The court ruled in favor of Adamson stating that since the contract had been made before Oklahoma's admission into Union when different laws applied; therefore it did not violate any existing statutes at its time. Henceforth, they upheld its validity despite changes in legislation after statehood.

In the dissenting opinion for Adamson v. Gilliland, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the law and its application to this case. He argued that a contract had been formed between Adamson and Gilliland when they agreed on terms for land purchase, even though no written agreement was signed at that time. According to him, it was not necessary for all details of their arrangement to be finalized in writing before an enforceable contract existed; rather, he believed that mutual assent should be sufficient basis for contractual obligation under common law principles. Furthermore, he contended that there were factual issues regarding whether or not such mutual assent actually occurred which should have been resolved by a jury instead of being decided as a matter of law by judges alone. Therefore, he would have reversed the lower court's judgment dismissing Adamson's claim against Gilliland and remanded the case back down for further proceedings consistent with his views.