In the case of Brader v. James, formerly Reeves (1917), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Brader, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had received it through allotment as part of his membership in the Choctaw tribe. However, under federal law at that time, such lands could not be sold or transferred without approval from the U.S government for 25 years after their initial allocation to prevent exploitation and fraud against Native Americans. The defendant argued this point and claimed rightful ownership based on subsequent purchase during foreclosure proceedings initiated by creditors against original allotee's estate due to unpaid debts which was permissible under same laws governing restrictions on alienation of allotted tribal lands. The court ruled in favor of defendant stating that while there were indeed restrictions on voluntary sale or transfer by allottees themselves within specified period; these did not extend to involuntary transfers like foreclosures where property is seized and sold off to recover debts thereby validating defendant's claim.

The dissenting opinion in the Brader v. James case, formerly Reeves, 1917, argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider and apply relevant legal principles. The dissent believed that the court should have focused on whether or not there was a valid contract between Brader and James (formerly Reeves), rather than focusing solely on whether or not there had been fraud involved in obtaining said contract. They contended that if a valid contract existed then any subsequent actions taken by either party would be governed by this agreement regardless of any alleged fraudulent activity. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain facts presented during trial which led them to conclude differently about key issues related to contractual obligations and rights under law.