In the case of De Lamar's Nevada Gold Mining Company v. Nesbitt, 1899, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract for mining services could be enforced despite allegations that it violated public policy because it involved gambling on future gold production. The plaintiff, De Lamar's Nevada Gold Mining Company had entered into an agreement with defendant Nesbitt in which he would receive payment based on the amount of gold extracted from certain mines. When Nesbitt sued for his compensation under this agreement, the company argued that such a contract constituted illegal wagering and should not be enforceable by law. The court ruled in favor of Nesbitt stating that while contracts involving speculation can sometimes violate public policy if they involve pure gambling or betting elements; however, this particular arrangement did not fall into those categories as there were actual services provided by Mr.Nesbit and thus upheld its legality.

In the dissenting opinion for De Lamar's Nevada Gold Mining Company v. Nesbitt, Justice Harlan argued that the plaintiff should not be barred from seeking relief due to a technicality in jurisdictional rules. He contended that while it was true that the mining company was incorporated in West Virginia and thus technically an inhabitant of West Virginia, its principal place of business was New York where all major decisions were made and operations conducted. Therefore, he believed it would be unjust to deny the plaintiff access to federal courts simply because of a legal fiction regarding corporate residence. Furthermore, he emphasized on looking at substance over form when determining jurisdictional issues like this one.