In the 1892 case of Casement v. Brown, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land rights in Kansas. The plaintiff, John S. Casement, had purchased land from the defendant, George W. Brown under an agreement that if any part of it was found to be railroad property and not legally sellable by Brown then he would refund Casement's money for those portions. When it was later discovered that some parts were indeed railroad property and thus could not have been sold by Brown, he refused to refund Casement's money arguing that because they both knew at time of sale there might be issues with title due to potential railway claims this constituted "constructive notice" which absolved him from having to return funds as per their agreement. The court disagreed with his argument ruling in favor of Mr.Casement stating that even though both parties were aware there may be problems with title; this did not constitute constructive notice since neither party knew definitively whether or how much land belonged to railroads until after purchase completion when surveys confirmed such details.

In the dissenting opinion for Casement v. Brown, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Peter and John Casement was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the contract between the parties had been fulfilled when work on a railroad project had been completed, even though there were some minor deviations from original plans. They contended that these changes did not constitute a breach of contract as they didn't affect functionality or value of the finished product; thus, payment should have been rendered in full as per agreed terms. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of "extra work" clause in their agreement which led to additional charges by Browns without prior consent from Casements - an act seen as unjust enrichment by minority judges who felt this violated principles of equity and fairness inherent in contractual dealings.