In the case of Chandler v. Pomeroy in 1891, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for land purchase could be enforced despite allegations that it had been obtained through fraudulent means. The plaintiff, Chandler, argued that he had been misled by Pomeroy into purchasing land at an inflated price based on false representations about its value and potential profitability. The court ruled in favor of Pomeroy, stating that while misrepresentation might have occurred during negotiations, there was no evidence to suggest fraud or deceitful intent on his part. Furthermore, they noted that Chandler failed to exercise due diligence before entering into the agreement and thus bore some responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of his decision to proceed with the transaction.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chandler v. Pomeroy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law requiring all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 years old to perform two days of road work annually or pay a $3 tax was unconstitutional. The dissent believed this law violated both the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, and Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, which ensures citizens from other states are not denied any privileges or immunities enjoyed by citizens in their own state. They contended that because women were exempted from this requirement while non-resident males were not, it created an unequal burden based on sex and residency status. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation that road maintenance constituted a public duty rather than personal service; thus making it permissible for states to compel its performance without violating individual rights against involuntary servitude as protected by Thirteenth Amendment.