In the case of Farley v. Hill in 1893, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mineral rights. The plaintiff, Farley, claimed that he had purchased land from Hill with an agreement that included all mineral rights to coal found beneath the surface. However, when coal was discovered years later, Hill asserted his right to it based on a Kentucky law which stated that unless explicitly transferred in writing at time of sale or afterwards by deed recorded within six months after its execution; all mines and minerals remained with original owner regardless of subsequent sales or transfers of property above ground level. Farley sued for breach of contract but lost both at trial court and upon appeal before reaching Supreme Court. The justices upheld previous rulings stating they could not interfere with state laws regarding property transactions unless there was clear violation against Federal Constitution - which wasn't present here as Kentucky's statute didn't deprive anyone their due process nor equal protection under Fourteenth Amendment.

The dissenting opinion in Farley v. Hill argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Mr. Hill and against Mr. Farley, was incorrect because it failed to consider key aspects of contract law. The dissenters believed that there had been no breach of contract by Farley as he had not agreed to any specific terms with Hill regarding the sale or delivery of goods but rather only made an offer for purchase which could be accepted or rejected at will by Hill without legal consequence until such time as mutual agreement on all terms was reached and formalized into a binding contract between them both parties involved in this case.