In the case of Corkran Oil and Development Company v. Arnaudet in 1905, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over oil land leases. The plaintiff, Corkran Oil and Development Company, alleged that they had entered into an agreement with defendant Arnaudet for leasing certain lands for oil development purposes but were later denied access to these lands by the defendant despite having made payments as per their contract. The company sued Arnaudet seeking damages for breach of contract and also asked the court to enforce specific performance on part of the defendant i.e., allow them access to leased lands as agreed upon in their contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Corkran Oil stating that there was indeed a valid lease agreement between both parties which should be upheld. It ordered Arnaudet not only to pay damages but also specifically perform his obligations under said lease agreement thereby granting Corkran Oil rightful access to leased properties.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Corkran Oil and Development Company v. Arnaudet argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding oil leases. The dissenting justices believed that an oil lease should be treated as a real estate transaction, not a mere license to extract minerals from the land. They contended that when someone purchases an oil lease, they are buying more than just permission to drill; they also acquire rights to any potential profits from future discoveries of oil or gas on the property. Therefore, if a lessee fails to pay rent or otherwise breaches their contract, it does not automatically terminate their right to these potential profits - instead, this must be decided by a court of law based on each individual case's circumstances. In contrast, the majority held that failure to pay rent immediately terminated all rights under an oil lease without need for legal action.