In the case of Cross v. United States in 1891, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an alleged breach of contract by the U.S. government. The plaintiff, Cross, had entered into a contract with the government to deliver mail between certain locations within specified time frames. However, he was unable to fulfill his obligations due to unforeseen circumstances such as bad weather and impassable roads which were beyond his control. He sued for payment under quantum meruit (a reasonable sum of money for services rendered), arguing that despite not fulfilling all terms of the contract due to these uncontrollable factors, he should still be paid for work done. The court held that while it is true that parties are generally excused from performance when it becomes impossible or impracticable through no fault of their own (doctrine known as "impossibility"), this principle did not apply here because there was no provision in their agreement relieving him from liability under such conditions; hence he assumed risk associated with delivery delays caused by inclement weather or poor road conditions. Therefore, since Cross failed to meet contractual requirements fully and timely regardless reasons behind non-performance - even if they were beyond his control - he could not recover compensation based on quantum meruit theory.

In the dissenting opinion for Cross v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an allegedly illegal search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. The dissenting justices contended that allowing such evidence to be used in court would set a dangerous precedent, effectively condoning unlawful police conduct and undermining citizens' constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. They believed that any evidence obtained in this manner should be deemed inadmissible, regardless of its relevance or reliability, as a means of deterring future violations by law enforcement officials. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that excluding such evidence would hinder criminal prosecutions; instead arguing it is more important to uphold fundamental civil liberties than secure convictions at all costs.