In the 1934 case of Forrest v. Jack, Receiver, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over oil and gas leases in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Forrest, had leased land to an oil company for exploration and production but later claimed that he was entitled to cancel these leases due to non-production. However, the defendant argued that under Oklahoma law at the time of leasing (1917), there was no provision allowing for cancellation due to non-production. The lower courts sided with Forrest but upon appeal by Jack as receiver for one of the companies involved in this lease agreement; it reached Supreme Court which reversed this decision stating that when interpreting contracts related to property rights such as these leases - laws existing at time contract is made should govern unless explicitly stated otherwise within contract itself or if subsequent legislation clearly intended retroactive effect on such agreements.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Forrest v. Jack, Receiver argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles regarding receivership. The dissent contended that a receiver should not be allowed to take possession of property without first providing adequate security for potential damages or losses incurred by the owner due to wrongful seizure. It also disagreed with the majority’s view on jurisdiction, arguing that federal courts do have jurisdiction over state law claims when they are related to a federal question at hand. Furthermore, it criticized the court's failure to consider whether there were sufficient grounds for appointing a receiver in this case and suggested that such an appointment may have been unnecessary or inappropriate under these circumstances.