In Emblen v. Lincoln Land Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a land contract dispute fell under federal jurisdiction due to diversity of citizenship between parties. The plaintiff, Emblen, had entered into a contract with the defendant company for purchase of land in Nebraska but failed to make payments as agreed upon. As such, the company sought to terminate his rights and recover possession of the property through state court proceedings in Illinois where both parties resided at that time. However, during these proceedings Emblen moved out-of-state creating diversity of citizenship which he argued should move this case from state court to federal court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that while diversity did exist at one point it didn't when litigation began nor when judgment was rendered by lower courts; therefore it could not be used as grounds for removal or reversal on appeal now. Furthermore they clarified that even if there were valid reasons for removal (which there weren’t), proper procedures hadn’t been followed since notice wasn't given within required timeframe after becoming aware of potential grounds for removal.

The dissenting opinion in the Emblen v. Lincoln Land Company case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a contract between two parties, despite one party being misled about its terms, was unjust. The dissent contended that when there is evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in a contractual agreement, it should be voided and not enforced by law. It emphasized that contracts should only be upheld if they are entered into freely and with full knowledge of their implications by both parties involved. In this case, where one party was deceived about the nature of land they were purchasing - believing it to be valuable for farming when it was actually worthless swamp land - enforcing such an agreement would go against principles of fairness and justice.