In the case of Day et al., Partners under the Firm Name of J.G. & I.N. Day, v. United States in 1917, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between private parties and an Indian tribe required approval by Congress to be valid. The Days had entered into a lease agreement with members of an Indian tribe for land on which they intended to drill for oil; however, this lease was not approved by Congress as required by law at that time. When oil was discovered on another part of tribal lands leased legally from the same tribe (with Congressional approval), the Days claimed their unapproved lease should also benefit from this discovery due its proximity and geological similarity. The Supreme Court ruled against them stating that contracts involving Indian lands must have congressional approval before they can be considered legal or binding - regardless if there is evidence suggesting potential benefits or profits from such agreements would likely occur anyway due to geographical factors like those presented in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for the case Day et al., Partners under the Firm Name of J.G. & I.N. Day, v. United States (1917), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr argued that there was no legal basis to hold a private firm liable for damages caused by a public enemy during wartime, even if they had been contracted by the government to transport goods on their behalf. He contended that it was unreasonable and unjust to expect a private entity to bear such risks without explicit agreement or compensation from the government beforehand. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how liability had been assigned in similar cases previously decided by lower courts and emphasized that this decision could set an unfair precedent moving forward.