In the case of Fort Smith Spelter Company v. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Company, 1924, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for the sale of natural gas could be enforced when it had been made in violation of state law. The Fort Smith Spelter Company (FSSC) entered into a contract to purchase natural gas from Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co., but this agreement violated an Arkansas statute that prohibited contracts for sales exceeding $50 without written evidence or partial payment. When FSSC refused to pay for delivered gas citing this statute, Clear Creek sued and won at both trial court and appellate level. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions on appeal by FSSC, ruling that while the initial formation of their contract may have violated state law due to lack of written evidence or partial payment, subsequent actions by both parties effectively ratified its existence under common law principles. This included delivery and acceptance of gas over several months as well as verbal acknowledgements between them about their ongoing business relationship. Therefore, despite its illegal inception under Arkansas statute laws regarding contractual agreements above $50 value threshold without proper documentation or advance payments; once validated through mutual conduct such as continued supply/delivery plus receipt/acceptance along with oral affirmations acknowledging said transactional interactions - it became legally enforceable.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fort Smith Spelter Company v. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Company argued that the majority misinterpreted Arkansas law regarding mineral rights and land ownership. The dissent contended that under state law, a grantor who retains mineral rights but does not specify a time limit for extraction effectively has an indefinite period to remove those minerals. They disagreed with the majority's view that such right was limited by a "reasonable" time frame determined by court discretion or implied from circumstances surrounding the transaction. This interpretation, they believed, undermined property rights and created uncertainty for businesses involved in resource extraction industries like mining or oil drilling which often require long-term planning and investment. Furthermore, it could discourage future transactions due to potential legal disputes over what constitutes 'reasonable' time frames for extracting reserved minerals.