In the 1903 case of Dimmick v. Tompkins, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights in California. The plaintiff, Dimmick, claimed that he had been defrauded by Tompkins who allegedly concealed valuable information about a mine located on property sold to him. The court held that since there was no explicit agreement between both parties regarding sharing profits from any potential mineral wealth discovered after sale, Tompkins did not have an obligation to disclose such information prior to selling his property. Furthermore, it was determined that even if fraud could be proven (which it couldn't), the remedy would not involve transferring ownership of the mine back to Dimmick but rather monetary damages equivalent to what he might have lost due to alleged deceitful actions by Tompkins.

In the dissenting opinion for DIMMICK v. TOMPKINS, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision that a federal court could not award damages to a plaintiff who had been injured due to negligence by an employee of a company involved in interstate commerce. He argued that such power was inherent in any court and necessary for it to fulfill its function as an arbiter of justice. Furthermore, he contended that Congress did not intend to strip courts of this ability when they passed the Employers' Liability Act, which limited liability claims against railroads engaged in interstate commerce. Instead, he believed this law merely set minimum standards for employer responsibility and did not prevent courts from imposing additional penalties if they deemed them appropriate under common law principles.