In the case of Bothwell et al. v. Buckbee, Mears Company in 1927, the plaintiffs were shareholders who sued on behalf of themselves and other stockholders against a corporation and its directors for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the value of assets acquired by their company. The Supreme Court held that under Michigan law, where a suit is brought by minority shareholders on behalf of all others similarly situated to enforce a secondary right (a right accruing to them in their common interest as shareholders), it must be shown that they made an effort to secure such action from managing bodies within the corporation or provide reasons why such efforts would have been futile. In this case, no attempt was made nor reason given for not making one; hence dismissal was affirmed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bothwell et al. v. Buckbee, Mears Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the plaintiffs was incorrect because it failed to consider key aspects of contract law. The dissenting justices believed that there had been a clear breach of contract by Buckbee, Mears Company when they sold stock at less than its agreed-upon value without first offering it back to the original owners (Bothwell and others), as stipulated in their agreement. They contended that this action resulted in significant financial loss for the plaintiffs who should therefore be entitled to damages from Buckbee, Mears Company. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence was interpreted and felt certain facts were overlooked or undervalued by both lower courts and their fellow Supreme Court Justices which led them to an erroneous conclusion.