In the case of Coburn v. Cedar Valley Land and Cattle Company (Limited), 1890, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Iowa. The plaintiff, Coburn, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from the defendant company but was not given possession due to an alleged defect in title. He sought damages for breach of contract and also requested specific performance - i.e., transfer of property as per agreement terms. However, it was found that at no point did Coburn pay or offer to pay any part of purchase money except initial payment which wasn't enough to establish his claim on land under law. Moreover, there were doubts about whether he could have paid remaining amount if asked by defendants since he didn't show sufficient proof regarding this during trial proceedings. The court held that unless full payment is made or tendered along with readiness & willingness shown consistently throughout course till completion date; one cannot demand specific performance based on partial compliance only because such contracts are reciprocal obligations where both parties must perform their parts simultaneously unless otherwise agreed upon specifically between them. Therefore, judgment was rendered against plaintiff who failed to meet these conditions thereby denying him relief sought through lawsuit while upholding validity & enforceability of contractual agreements within legal framework.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Coburn v. Cedar Valley Land and Cattle Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar matters. The dissenting justices believed that the court had previously established a precedent for allowing corporations to be sued in any state where they conducted business, regardless of where they were incorporated or headquartered. They contended that by ruling otherwise in this case, the majority was effectively overturning these precedents without sufficient justification. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain aspects of corporate law and felt their colleagues were ignoring key legal principles related to jurisdictional issues involving corporations.