In the case of Dobson v. Cubley in 1892, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Dobson, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from Cubley and subsequently made improvements on it. However, after discovering that Cubley did not have clear title to the property at the time of sale due to an existing mortgage lien held by another party which was later foreclosed upon causing him to lose his investment and improvement costs. He sued for damages arguing fraud on part of Cubley. The court ruled in favor of Dobson stating that even though there wasn't any direct fraudulent intent proven against Cubley; however as per law if one sells something they do not own or have rights to sell then it is considered as constructive fraud regardless whether seller knew about defect in their title or not. This decision established important precedent regarding real estate transactions and clarified legal principles related to constructive fraud ensuring protection for buyers who might unknowingly purchase properties with unclear titles.

In the dissenting opinion for Dobson v. Cubley, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Cubley was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process which should have resulted in a new trial being granted to Dobson. They contended that certain evidence presented by Dobson had been improperly excluded and other evidence admitted against him without proper foundation or authentication. Furthermore, they disagreed with how jury instructions were handled, arguing they favored Cubley unfairly and prejudiced the jury against Dobson’s case. Therefore, these justices felt strongly that justice had not been served due to these procedural issues and expressed their disagreement with upholding such an unjust verdict.