In the case of Bond et al., Partners as Bond & Buttfield v. Hume, 1916, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a mining claim in Alaska. The plaintiffs (Bond and Buttfield) claimed that they had rightfully purchased the mine from its original owner before he died. However, his widow (Hume) contested this sale after her husband's death and argued that she was now the rightful owner of the mine due to inheritance laws. The court ruled in favor of Hume on two grounds: first, because there was no written evidence proving that her late husband had sold his rights to Bond and Buttfield; secondly, because even if such an agreement existed it would have been invalid since federal law required all transfers of mining claims to be recorded within three months - which hadn't happened here.

In the dissenting opinion for Bond et al., Partners as Bond & Buttfield, v. Hume, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that found in favor of Hume. He argued that there was no legal basis for holding the defendants liable because they had not made any false representations or engaged in fraudulent conduct. According to him, it was unreasonable and unjust to hold someone responsible for another person's losses simply because they were involved in a business transaction together. Furthermore, he believed that if such liability were allowed under law then it would discourage people from engaging in commercial activities due to fear of potential lawsuits and financial loss.